NYCPHP Meetup

[Kristina Anderson]

> 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.

Yes, that is what I was referring to and you are right, the educational 
system has to change over time to meet society's needs...but right now 
in the US we have this particular system still in place.

Other comments:

Admittedly I'm not a "typical person" in the IT field -- I have a 
liberal arts education, and almost 10 years in another field before 
deciding to make the change to IT (programming) in my early/mid 30s.  
I'm now in my mid 40s (45 in August) and have been getting paid to 
write code for 10 years.  It was a steep learning curve and I had to 
spend at least 2 or 3 years in the "learning stage" (which I did on my 
own time while continuing to work in my previous field).  But I was 
bright, worked hard, and I learned enough to be at least competent.

Some managers probably would not want to hire me because they are 
looking for a "traditional" IT person...i.e. a 23, 24 yr old guy with a 
CS degree.  But those types of people are not always suitable to move 
up into management or lead teams, and they don't have the "soft 
skills"...communication, maturity, knowledge of different businesses 
and industries, and etc. etc. etc. that a lot of managers know are 
extremely valuable in an IT person.

Probably most managers are going to make hiring decisions based on 
what's worked for them in the past.  But a lot of them also know that a 
team is best if people do have a range of skills...and aren't all a 
homogeneous group of people the same age with the exact same 
educational background and skillset.  

And also I feel there is a lot of transferability between liberal arts 
and any field one chooses to go into...for instance, I studied the 
structure and usage of human languages...now I use different 
programming languages and they have similarities and differences just 
as human languages do...and then I spent 7 (of the most boring) years 
of my life proofreading and editing legal contracts...which taught me 
patience to wade through tons of code (which isn't exactly stimulating 
reading either in most cases!!), and a careful eye for detail.  So I 
feel that even if it's not "vocational," there is a place for liberal 
arts in education and it's not a waste of time to study it on the 
university level.

And also it bears mentioning that back in the early 80s, as a young 
white female my chances of getting into an "engineering program" were 
slim to zero.  I remember wanting to take Physics my senior year of HS 
and being told that "girls do not need that class since they will not 
be studying science or math in college anyway" (and mind you I was a 
National Merit Scholar and had been in "advanced" courses most of my 
school life)...and still they would not let me enroll.  Hopefully 
things have changed a bit since then.
 
-- Kristina




> 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
> _______________________________________________
> New York PHP Community Talk Mailing List
> http://lists.nyphp.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
> 
> NYPHPCon 2006 Presentations Online
> http://www.nyphpcon.com
> 
> Show Your Participation in New York PHP
> http://www.nyphp.org/show_participation.php
> 
>