> Kindly point out where I said that. You can't. Because I did not.
I interpreted you as being upset that a class about Karl Marx being required, which I interpret as about communism, as being unacceptable. Am I wrong in that assumption? What's your complaint here?
> I was reading Plato, Kant and Descartes, while my US counterparts were, well, fucking off.
> Today, I have to supplement my kids' education by exposing them to such topics.
And you're unhappy about them being exposed to Marx? I'm not sure what your actual complaint is, since you think I didn't address it clearly earlier, but it sure sounds like you want the education system to expose students to only specific works, since you've given examples of what's okay (above) and what isn't (information about Karl Marx).
> Universities should be devoted to what the person wants to study and the professional field they have chosen.
That is not the sole purpose of universities, as much as you want it to be. There's a reason why there's a "general education" part of the curriculum. That's also the part of the curriculum you'll see both classes about Marx and about Descartes, unless you major deals with them specifically.
> There are at least two ways to look at this: One, we could graduate people a year earlier --and with far less debt-- if we focused on what matters. The other is to say: If I am going to pay $50K for a year in school, the courses I take outside of those directly related to my major should be my choice. If I do not want to take humanities and focus on another year of specialized engineering coursework, that should be my choice. It's my money.
There are plenty of schools that function exactly as you want. Trade schools. They teach you a specific trade. There are plenty that do computer science, as well.
Why are you trying to make universities trade schools? Universities are for continuing general education and choosing a focus. As much as you want them to be a trade school, that's not what they are.
> Last I checked, there are no job postings out there (in tech fields) that list specific non-tech coursework as requirements. It is OK for people to study anything they want outside of their major --with an emphasis on "they"-- not forced. We are making people spend tens of thousands of dollars on stuff that, in most cases, has zero career value.
No, but they list four year universities, with the understanding that means you've also gone through the general education portion of the school, and have not failed out of general math and English classes and should have a base level of competency. Those jobs that don't expect that may not require a university.
Knowing that someone is competent enough in the general fields a university requires to be able to communicate in text in long-form has value. It has value in explaining intricate details and concepts to others in a way they can understand, it allows for a base level of knowledge in how to categorize data into a form that may work for documentation. It allows for people to have thought about others that may not have similar life experiences so they can communicate with them more accurately rather than making base assumptions that may be very wrong due to complete inexperience with certain topics.
> . If general education at a university level has value --return on investment-- the MARKET will make that decisions and students will willingly CHOOSE and seek that coursework...because it will be of value to them.
The market very clearly wants college graduates, and college includes general education, so I'm pretty sure the market has spoken. I'm not sure what benefit it does you to completely ignore the evidence at hand because it goes against your view that this education is useless and nobody wants it. Businesses want it, or they would advertise for trade schools or some other equivalent. Students want it because businesses want it (and in some cases because they like the idea of learning more).
The entire market is clearly built around wanting exactly this thing you think has no value and isn't wanted by the market, so I'm very confused by your reasoning.
> I interpreted <snip> which I interpret as <snip> assumption
Right. Interpretation, layered upon interpretation, layered upon assumptions.
That's why people can't have conversations. They hear what they want and read what they want into what others are saying.
My problem isn't at all with a class about XYZ. It's about being FORCED to take a class that has nothing whatsoever to do with the field of study.
It's also about wasting people's time and adding tens of thousands of dollars in debt that will never be useful to them. If this XYZ is useful, by all means, make it available as a degree-enhancing class to be chosen freely and not as a condition for graduation.
If someone just wants to get a bachelors in three years and go to work, they should be able to do it.
This is where European education diverges from the US.
In Europe (and other parts of the world) kids exit high school having covered more material and ready for university. Next, once at Uni, they focus 100% on degree-relevant coursework. No English (language), History or almost anything that isn't relevant to the degree.
They are organized to receive a quality education before university. A bachelors degree in the US is four years, in Europe, typically three.
We make them waste a whole year to make-up for what our secondary schooling failed to deliver. No employer in the STEM fields values this at all.
In this country there's a severe failure to understand that our system of education is seriously broken. A high school graduate should be useful to society right out of school. We graduate ignorant young adults who are barely good enough to stack boxes at a warehouse or make coffee.
I was just in Singapore visiting a friend for couple of weeks. The level of education his 15 year old is receiving in state-run high school is nothing less than mind-blowing when compared to a 15 year old in the US. The system of education in this small country puts the US to absolute shame.
It's embarrassing, really, truly embarrassing.
We can stick our heads in the sand and pretend this isn't happening, or we can be honest in assessing how we have gone wrong and fix it.
Your trade-school vs. university argument is empty. Universities in throughout Europe manage to graduate Electrical Engineers, Mechanical Engineers, Software Engineers, Biologists and myriad other STEM professionals in three years...because they cut out the bullshit and provide quality education before university.
American universities can be more competitive than European and even Asian ones. The stories of Singaporean uni students going to Stanford on an exchange and getting caught cheating are not rare. It’s a weird contradiction, where we have the worst and best schools at the same time.
I am not talking about competitiveness. I am talking about wasting a year with non-degree coursework and saddling students with tens of thousands of dollars of debt because of it. Coursework that no employer cares about one bit. Coursework that should be covered in high school, preparing young adults for the world --even if they don't go to college.
Are we sitting here pretending that all is well with our system of education? I would find that disturbing.
> I am talking about wasting a year with non-degree coursework and saddling students with tens of thousands of dollars of debt because of it.
I did my post-doc at EPFL, a 3 year university but almost all the CS students would stay in for at least 4 years (and get a 1 year masters). I took 5 years myself to do undergrad in the states, I don't think that one year was a deal breaker either way.
> Coursework that should be covered in high school, preparing young adults for the world --even if they don't go to college.
High schools can't really do that, unless they are structured more like universities. I got 2 years of physics and calculus out of college, and while I breezed by the first year of college math, physics killed me. Sending kids to college earlier if they are ready for it would be better than restructuring HS to teach at the college level.
> Are we sitting here pretending that all is well with our system of education? I would find that disturbing.
> High schools can't really do that, unless they are structured more like universities.
That's not true. There's a very large gap between graduating 18 year old's who are only good for box-stacking, making coffee or going to college (with a lot of help in all cases) and actually graduating people who can deliver value to an employer and is culturally ready for society.
Take critical thinking as an easy example. Or logic, philosophy, art, music, trades and other important areas that would benefit society if exposed during the K-12 period.
I say this both as a parent and an employer.
The average high school graduate is useless to me, in almost any capacity.
The average college graduate isn't very far from that. This isn't new, it has been discussed here on HN many times in the past. Small to medium companies don't have the time or resources to engage in education after education. This is where this concept of wasting a year of a student's time with coursework nobody cares about is very relevant.
As for my own kids, I made sure to heavily supplement their US high school education with learning that made them valuable upon graduation. A simple result from this was landing knowledge-based jobs making more than $35/hr right out of high school, when their peers where struggling with minimum wage work almost throughout their university experience.
As a result of that, my oldest had a solid financial footing when he was done with university. All of this was due to education prior to college, in this case, driven my my efforts and those of my wife. Schools could do this. It isn't difficult. And it sure isn't a matter of money, not today.
This kind of thing would materially change society and outcomes at all levels. It would increase opportunity at all layers of the population. There is no inherent reason for which lower income households could not have their children receive a solid, useful and marketable education in high school. We just suck at doing it.
My personal experience, from many decades ago and in systems of education outside and inside the US, was to walk away from high school with lots of marketable skills. I had no problems at all delivering value to any employers. I did not accumulate any student debt in university in the US because I had solid employment the entire time and was paid very well as I built on the foundation I got in high school.
Simple example, I had two years of technical drafting. One of my first jobs was doing exactly that. And then AutoCAD came out. Because I had a position drafting with pencil and paper I was given the opportunity to learn ACAD and a very nice raise. Things evolved from there. And, no I did not attend a trade school. We just had more opportunities to learn things in school than kids have today.
High schools don't have to become full-blown university level for this to become a reality. Furthermore, we tend to make the assumption that everyone is, or should be, college-bound. That's a mistake. Not everyone needs to waste time with Calculus, Physics and Chemistry. I say "waste time" because these topic areas are utterly without value for lots of professions. One could easily teach a "general science education" course and move on. One of my very favorite talks on the subject of fitting education to the student is by Sir Ken Robinson:
There weren't many students who took two years of calculus and physics in my high school, and even though it was a good high school (in the Seattle area), many students still didn't bother.
Perhaps you are advocating the dual trade/university tracks that German (and Swiss) schools promote? The problem is putting students into either or bucket after middle school.
> Right. Interpretation, layered upon interpretation, layered upon assumptions.
> That's why people can't have conversations.
That's the only way to have conversations. It's impossible to know the other's mind, or to understand everything that is meant when something is said, you have have to make assumptions. When it seems those assumptions are wrong, you ask for clarification, as I did. That's how to actually have a conversation.
> My problem isn't at all with a class about XYZ. It's about being FORCED to take a class that has nothing whatsoever to do with the field of study.
So, should they not take English classes either, for fields that's not related to their fields of study? Do you think the state of the average high school graduate is sufficient in English to not need further development in that field? Do you think that's different in the U.S. compared to Europe? (you've mentioned you think it's lacking in philosophy, but I think that's a less interesting question compared to English).
> Your trade-school vs. university argument is empty. Universities in throughout Europe manage to graduate Electrical Engineers, Mechanical Engineers, Software Engineers, Biologists and myriad other STEM professionals in three years...because they cut out the bullshit and provide quality education before university.
Says you, completely anecdotally, without much to back it up rather than your own singular experience and the experience one one or more children, or at least that's all you've expressed here.
Are U.S. graduates less competitive or more competitive than those of Europe? Are they exactly equally as competitive? You're making a lot of claims without much verifiable info to back it up, and I'm not inclined to do your research for you when you're the one making an initial assertion against the status quo. If you feel that strongly about it, which is seems like you do, then you probably have some information you can provide to support your position.
> We make them waste a whole year to make-up for what our secondary schooling failed to deliver. No employer in the STEM fields values this at all.
I'm going to call complete bullshit on this. I hire in a STEM field, I care that someone has graduated college compared to a trade school, or just having past experience, because to me it signals a higher likelihood of a base level of ability to communicate and coordinate with others that college often requires (this does not mean I only hire those people, but it is a signal I care about). I do not think I'm an outlier.
> A high school graduate should be useful to society right out of school. We graduate ignorant young adults who are barely good enough to stack boxes at a warehouse or make coffee.
They should be. Usually they are. I have a bunch of friends from High School that never went to college. They are productive members of society, and don't just stack boxes at a warehouse, regardless of what you may think of people that don't go to college in the U.S. Perhaps you need to spend more time with these people, so you aren't so quick to denigrate them.
> I was just in Singapore visiting a friend for couple of weeks. The level of education his 15 year old is receiving in state-run high school is nothing less than mind-blowing when compared to a 15 year old in the US.
There have long been comparisons to methods of education, often between the Japanese and the U.S., which I think would be similar (or at least illustrates some of the problems with assuming one approach is better). One I'm aware of that compares and contrasts many aspects of education between the systems notes that while Japanese High School graduates have the education of a U.S. student a couple years into college, there are other problems with their approach.:
An ongoing issue is student creativity, flexibility, or individual expression. Critical thinking is not a concept that has been highly valued in Japan. Japanese students are regimented and geared toward perseverance and self-discipline. A saying that sums up this one-for-all belief is “the nail that sticks out gets hammered.” Thus, students are generally instructed to memorize the text on which they will be tested, resulting in high test scores that do not test students’ ability to use the data.[1]
How sure are you what you're advocating for is actually better, and doesn't just seem better on the few aspects you've been examining it on? What's a better for society, more uniformity in outcome and rote knowledge or more creativity? Are we selecting for one at the expense of the other when we change things? Do the changes actually benefit the system within which they would be afterwards? These are the things I think of when someone says we should make large changes to be more like a different society.
> In this country there's a severe failure to understand that our system of education is seriously broken.
I think there's a sever failure to understand our system of education at all, by both locals and foreigners. It seems to work in some respects, and fail in others. Before opting for a different set of trade-offs perhaps we should understand the ones we currently have. I don't have confidence you do, based on the conversation so far, so I'm hesitant to take your suggestions as something that would strictly be an improvement, and not just different in a way you assume would be better.
> We can stick our heads in the sand and pretend this isn't happening, or we can be honest in assessing how we have gone wrong and fix it.
The first step would be to actually look at the data and figure out what are the problems and what are the strengths. If you're unwilling or unable to see any strengths, perhaps you should look at the problem closer.
> Do you think the state of the average high school graduate is sufficient in English
It's horrible. This is precisely the kind of failure I am referring to.
Why are we assuming that everyone graduating high school must go to college? That is clearly no the case, by a massive margin. Not everyone should or wants to.
OK, from that basis, one where the majority of high school students do not move on to college: What should our high school education look like? What results should it deliver?
Well, they should have a solid commend of their own language, both spoken and written. Is that too much to ask? There should not be any need for an 18 year old to take English classes at the university level for any major that isn't directly in of this. English and Literature majors? Sure. Law? Not a lawyer, maybe. STEM? C'mon.
Another way to look at it is that we are causing serious issues of inequality and reduced opportunity because our high school education is so inadequate that the only way to become useful is to take another year of coursework at the college level. That, again, is a sign of failure. And the consequences to the non-college bound population are severe.
> Says you, completely anecdotally, without much to back it up rather than your own singular experience
Not sure what you are talking about. A bachelors in Europe takes three years and focuses on degree-related work. It is assumed that general education is what you got in high school. This isn't anecdotal or a singular experience, google it. Are there universities where it takes longer? Maybe, I haven't conducted a full survey. I just know that the idea is to graduate young adults from high school with a solid education and not have to engage in "repair work" at the university level if at all possible.
> I have a bunch of friends from High School that never went to college. They are productive members of society
Yeah? What do they do? Only list occupations they learned in high school or were able to walk into because they got a useful amount of training in that domain during high school.
> so quick to denigrate them
Our culture seems to now have the option to interpret the truth as denigration. Not a way to make things better at all.
> The first step would be to actually look at the data and figure out what are the problems and what are the strengths. If you're unwilling or unable to see any strengths, perhaps you should look at the problem closer.
You don't fix strengths. You fix failures. Go research college dropout rates and think of what happened in high school that did not allow so many students to excel in college.
I did. I said I made assumptions, and asked you to clarify.
> Our culture seems to now have the option to interpret the truth as denigration. Not a way to make things better at all.
Your words were "We graduate ignorant young adults who are barely good enough to stack boxes at a warehouse or make coffee." Of course you're going to just say "the truth hurts" when you're called on that and prevented with someone else's experience that contradicts that. Like every other point you make you're just pulling it out of the air and not supporting it by any means.
> Not sure what you are talking about. A bachelors in Europe takes three years and focuses on degree-related work.
So? Do people that graduate there have better or worse outcomes and careers when presented with similar situations? Assuming the degrees are equivalent from the U.S. to Europe is the same as assuming every degree from every college in the U.S. is equivalent, or every High School graduates students with equivalent ability.
Not only do I think that's completely unsupported in anything you've presented, I think it's very unlikely to be true.
> You don't fix strengths. You fix failures.
Do you think it's impossible to accidentally reduce or eliminate a strength on accident? I didn't think I was being obtuse, but I'll spell it out again: What if the thing you think is a weakness is actually a strength in other ways that you aren't considering, and by changing it you may make things worse rather than better? Europe is not the U.S. What works there may not work the same here, as much as you seem to think you can just plug it into place. Maybe it would though. Have you even considered these aspects, or is your actual interest so shallow that you're only interested in saying that it would be better and ignoring any of the deeper aspects of what you're proposing?
All that's really happening here is you making blanket assertions, me questioning them and asking for the bare minimum of actual thought and effort to support the in some evidenced way, and you making more assertions without evidence to try to support yourself. If you really truly believe what you're saying, don't you owe it to yourself to actually put a little effort into learning the actual details what you so vehemently assert? The questions I have, which you've been plainly unable to answer with any real data (or anything other than repeating yourself, really), are not hard, in my opinion. There what anyone that actually wanted a change and cared about the outcome would want to know.
I interpreted you as being upset that a class about Karl Marx being required, which I interpret as about communism, as being unacceptable. Am I wrong in that assumption? What's your complaint here?
> I was reading Plato, Kant and Descartes, while my US counterparts were, well, fucking off.
> Today, I have to supplement my kids' education by exposing them to such topics.
And you're unhappy about them being exposed to Marx? I'm not sure what your actual complaint is, since you think I didn't address it clearly earlier, but it sure sounds like you want the education system to expose students to only specific works, since you've given examples of what's okay (above) and what isn't (information about Karl Marx).
> Universities should be devoted to what the person wants to study and the professional field they have chosen.
That is not the sole purpose of universities, as much as you want it to be. There's a reason why there's a "general education" part of the curriculum. That's also the part of the curriculum you'll see both classes about Marx and about Descartes, unless you major deals with them specifically.
> There are at least two ways to look at this: One, we could graduate people a year earlier --and with far less debt-- if we focused on what matters. The other is to say: If I am going to pay $50K for a year in school, the courses I take outside of those directly related to my major should be my choice. If I do not want to take humanities and focus on another year of specialized engineering coursework, that should be my choice. It's my money.
There are plenty of schools that function exactly as you want. Trade schools. They teach you a specific trade. There are plenty that do computer science, as well.
Why are you trying to make universities trade schools? Universities are for continuing general education and choosing a focus. As much as you want them to be a trade school, that's not what they are.
> Last I checked, there are no job postings out there (in tech fields) that list specific non-tech coursework as requirements. It is OK for people to study anything they want outside of their major --with an emphasis on "they"-- not forced. We are making people spend tens of thousands of dollars on stuff that, in most cases, has zero career value.
No, but they list four year universities, with the understanding that means you've also gone through the general education portion of the school, and have not failed out of general math and English classes and should have a base level of competency. Those jobs that don't expect that may not require a university.
Knowing that someone is competent enough in the general fields a university requires to be able to communicate in text in long-form has value. It has value in explaining intricate details and concepts to others in a way they can understand, it allows for a base level of knowledge in how to categorize data into a form that may work for documentation. It allows for people to have thought about others that may not have similar life experiences so they can communicate with them more accurately rather than making base assumptions that may be very wrong due to complete inexperience with certain topics.
> . If general education at a university level has value --return on investment-- the MARKET will make that decisions and students will willingly CHOOSE and seek that coursework...because it will be of value to them.
The market very clearly wants college graduates, and college includes general education, so I'm pretty sure the market has spoken. I'm not sure what benefit it does you to completely ignore the evidence at hand because it goes against your view that this education is useless and nobody wants it. Businesses want it, or they would advertise for trade schools or some other equivalent. Students want it because businesses want it (and in some cases because they like the idea of learning more).
The entire market is clearly built around wanting exactly this thing you think has no value and isn't wanted by the market, so I'm very confused by your reasoning.