There are many problems with the way American education is viewed today. Students are told early on to graduate high school and attend college in order to be successful. More emphasis should be put into the knowledge gained in high school to make sure that students don’t just attend college; they graduate. Graduation should always be more important than enrollment.
A complete restructuring of the American educational system would be great, but that’s just not going to happen. Instead the perception that high school is only meant to get students into college needs to change. High school should give students an education that provides them a means to survive in a growing economy. Right now, many students get to college with no real knowledge because they focused on graduating not learning. If high schools would upgrade standards and make their education better, it would improve the nation’s economy and the workforce’s skills. It would also help eliminate the problem of low college graduation rates. If students enter a college environment with more knowledge and a better foundation it is highly unlikely such a large number would drop out.
Of course, that isn’t the only flaw in the American educational system. Colleges are basically forced to focus all their efforts on enrollment because that directly correlates with money. This emphasis leads to little or no focus on graduation rates at some institutions. Most colleges graduate about half of their incoming freshmen within 6 years. The standard graduation period is supposed to be 4 years. So, even though the United States spends more money than anyone else on education, it has a low graduation rate. This is due to two main reasons; first, colleges have little or no incentive to graduate students, and second, most college classes are passable by simply showing up and reading a book.
Imagine taking a self-defense class where the teacher said to show up everyday, read the book, and eventually you will know self-defense. Would you pay for that class? Probably not, because showing up and reading a book isn’t teaching, it’s monitoring. Too many professors today monitor their students in class instead of teaching them. The norm among some professors is to lecture and test over 4 chapter blocks. So, the bulk of material learned in that professor’s class comes from the book and not from the highly skilled and specialized professor. How ironic. Most of what the professor “teaches” is what you learn on your own. Students who are required to read more hours outside of class are less likely to attend class. They figure if the book is the bulk of the class then why go listen to the professor talk about one detail for an hour. In some ways they are right, but most professors have policies to make sure students attend class or fail, which might explain why some students drop out. Why pay $12,000 on tuition when they could just buy the books for much less? College professors need to engage their students more and do more teaching; society will monitor the students.
Through the first three weeks of the current school year, enrollment has been a hot topic. You can’t talk to any school officials without them bringing it up. “Enrollment has increased this year, things are looking good.” But does this increase in enrollment lead to more graduates, or does it mean people are just spending money on education, not getting one. As previously mentioned, the graduation rate in America is low compared to other developed countries. So why, if so many enroll, are so few graduating? It’s caused by the fact that colleges have no incentives to graduate students except through the notoriety some of their graduates achieve. Colleges receive large sums of money based on the number of students they enroll. Just as much or more money should be given to colleges for graduating students. If colleges were given money based on the number of students they graduate, it would make colleges encourage students to graduate and not just attend. It would encourage colleges to build programs that help students to graduate from college in a set amount of time. It just seems more logical to reward colleges based on how many graduates they produce rather than on how many students they enroll.
These flaws can be fixed. It may take years to drastically change, but without change, American education will continue its downward spiral. But, I have high hopes that change will happen soon.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Tubbs, Chardai. (2009). Selecting a Major
Deciding on a major is a necessary step for a college student. With so many things to take into consideration, it can be a bit intimidating. As students prepare to go to college, the question of what major to choose arises. Students could debate back and as to which major would work best for them, but 80% of college students will change their major at least once before they graduate. In reality, deciding on a major is not as hard as people make it seem.
First and foremost, a college major must coincide with the interests of the student. Statistics show that people who love their job are more likely to produce a higher quality of work. Whether in a negative or positive way, a college major can affect one’s entire life. A college major determines the job that a person will do. In an ideal world, everyone would have a job they love. The only way students can move toward ideal is picking the correct major that complies with their interests. Only then can they have a better chance of having a career that fits them perfectly.
Interests are one factor that must be considered when choosing a major, but money must also be kept in mind. It is a sad fact that today money is very important. One must have money in order to survive. The cost of living in today’s world has skyrocketed. What people choose to do with their lives must support their lifestyle. For example, students cannot expect to live lives of luxury if they choose to be an elementary school teacher. because They will not get rich. Research about salary must be done when deciding on a major and ultimately, a career. A major or career, however, must not be chosen solely based on salary. Salary must only be a “topic for thought” in the debate between the majors.
According to Susan Albertine, at some universities, students are encouraged to design their own majors. This is an appealing idea because not only can students be assured that what they are doing is something they will love, but they get to be involved. Students get the chance to take classes together, give their new major and name, and get it approved. Once a students’ majors are approved, they begin coursework, and at graduation, they are given a “Special Major” degree. Students can combine their interests and passions along with how much they want to make and create their own perfect career. More schools should offer programs such as these. These types of innovations could relieve the stress of having to pick a “cookie-cutter” major. Oftentimes, one does not completely fall in love with everything about a particular major. This unique process of creating a one-of-a-kind major can help students to love every aspect of what they are doing. These curricular innovations begin with an interest in one’s field of study. By designing their own major, students are more likely to excel.
Picking a major has been the source of stress and strife for many college students. A major typically and directly impacts what career one will have. When deciding on a major, students should relax. They should keep in mind their own interests, the type of lifestyle they desire, and they should see if their school offers a “design your own major” program. Picking a major should not be a negative thing. If students can alter their way of thinking about a major, they can reduce the amount of stress that picking a major involves.
First and foremost, a college major must coincide with the interests of the student. Statistics show that people who love their job are more likely to produce a higher quality of work. Whether in a negative or positive way, a college major can affect one’s entire life. A college major determines the job that a person will do. In an ideal world, everyone would have a job they love. The only way students can move toward ideal is picking the correct major that complies with their interests. Only then can they have a better chance of having a career that fits them perfectly.
Interests are one factor that must be considered when choosing a major, but money must also be kept in mind. It is a sad fact that today money is very important. One must have money in order to survive. The cost of living in today’s world has skyrocketed. What people choose to do with their lives must support their lifestyle. For example, students cannot expect to live lives of luxury if they choose to be an elementary school teacher. because They will not get rich. Research about salary must be done when deciding on a major and ultimately, a career. A major or career, however, must not be chosen solely based on salary. Salary must only be a “topic for thought” in the debate between the majors.
According to Susan Albertine, at some universities, students are encouraged to design their own majors. This is an appealing idea because not only can students be assured that what they are doing is something they will love, but they get to be involved. Students get the chance to take classes together, give their new major and name, and get it approved. Once a students’ majors are approved, they begin coursework, and at graduation, they are given a “Special Major” degree. Students can combine their interests and passions along with how much they want to make and create their own perfect career. More schools should offer programs such as these. These types of innovations could relieve the stress of having to pick a “cookie-cutter” major. Oftentimes, one does not completely fall in love with everything about a particular major. This unique process of creating a one-of-a-kind major can help students to love every aspect of what they are doing. These curricular innovations begin with an interest in one’s field of study. By designing their own major, students are more likely to excel.
Picking a major has been the source of stress and strife for many college students. A major typically and directly impacts what career one will have. When deciding on a major, students should relax. They should keep in mind their own interests, the type of lifestyle they desire, and they should see if their school offers a “design your own major” program. Picking a major should not be a negative thing. If students can alter their way of thinking about a major, they can reduce the amount of stress that picking a major involves.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
King, Samson. (2009). Tertiary Education in America
From the earliest stages of development, societal standing affects the way and the degree to which one learns, interacts with, and experiences the surrounding world. Mirroring this, what is learned and to what level of education an individual reaches often determines fiscal security and, thereby, which sociopolitical class that person falls into. Class is defined as “a group sharing the same economic or social status” or “a group, set, or kind sharing common attributes.” One of the more common descriptions of class structure in the United States features five classes: upper class, upper-middle class, lower-middle class, working class, and the lower class. According the 2005 study by William Thompson and Joseph Hickey, the lower-middle class and working class each contain approximately 32% of the total population in the United States, together forming the bulk of the total population, most of whom complete high school and perhaps some college. The lower class contains around 20% of the United State’s population and most attended high school some. The upper-middle class and upper class both typically contain highly educated individuals who often hold a graduate degree and make up 15% and 1% of the total population, respectively.
For the lower class in the United States, tertiary education is predominantly out of the question. Only those (four-person) households that earn under $22,050 annually are considered impoverished, though even this value is grossly inadequate to sustain a family of four and fully pay all of the expenses that they might accrue in any given year. Many youths who live in this type of situation have both poorer health and either a poorer appreciation for education or an inability to pursue further education due to expense. Most of these youths tend to gravitate toward beginning work earlier on in life, thus shifting their focus away from educational pursuits and making opportunities for tertiary education soon after high school slim. Their early work experiences generally carry over into adulthood, effectively making them part of the working class provided they work enough at a certain rate of pay to fall above the poverty line. Eventually, many but not all may seek, some form of higher education much later in life(such as technical or business school for a managerial position requiring extended skill sets).
The working class’ focus is, obviously, work-centric. The working class is typically made up of individuals whose education was put on hold after high school either for the sake of sustaining a steady income or for general disinterest in further education at the time. Education beyond this is possible, perhaps, but not as likely to be pursued as classes higher in social standing with easier access to funds or fewer possible familial restrictions. Compared to the lower social classes, those born into lower-middle class families that compose the other half of the bulk of the population in the United States, have a much higher likelihood of attending college or technical school, often achieving at least a 2-year or part of a 4-year degree. Lower-middle class individuals with this sort of education tend to make more than their working class counterparts by $5,000 annually at the least and $45,000 annually at the most.
Upper-middle class individuals compose 15% of the total United States population and contain some of the most successful, fiscally secure, and well-educated people of all of the social classes, second only to the upper class, which composes a mere 1% of the total U.S. population. Those born into upper-middle class families usually have more access to education opportunities compared to lower classes due to a greater access to money and, therefore, typically have an significantly easier time gaining access to tertiary education, either from personal achievement or from their parents’/guardians’ money. This analysis exemplifies the way most of the social classes in the United States operate: minimal movement from one class to another due to an individuals’ propensity to naturally “flow” in the direction that they are most accustomed. This trend is even more applicable to those in the upper class, due to inheritances and to direct transfers of wealth being more common in this societal tier. The upper class also tends to achieve similar education as the upper-middle class, though perhaps at “better” institutions of learning.
Tertiary education after high school is something that less than half of the total population in the United States has, so far, embraced. Out of the total population, 29% of United States citizens possess baccalaureate degrees, which is both a disheartening notion and a major stumbling block for societal advancement.
For the lower class in the United States, tertiary education is predominantly out of the question. Only those (four-person) households that earn under $22,050 annually are considered impoverished, though even this value is grossly inadequate to sustain a family of four and fully pay all of the expenses that they might accrue in any given year. Many youths who live in this type of situation have both poorer health and either a poorer appreciation for education or an inability to pursue further education due to expense. Most of these youths tend to gravitate toward beginning work earlier on in life, thus shifting their focus away from educational pursuits and making opportunities for tertiary education soon after high school slim. Their early work experiences generally carry over into adulthood, effectively making them part of the working class provided they work enough at a certain rate of pay to fall above the poverty line. Eventually, many but not all may seek, some form of higher education much later in life(such as technical or business school for a managerial position requiring extended skill sets).
The working class’ focus is, obviously, work-centric. The working class is typically made up of individuals whose education was put on hold after high school either for the sake of sustaining a steady income or for general disinterest in further education at the time. Education beyond this is possible, perhaps, but not as likely to be pursued as classes higher in social standing with easier access to funds or fewer possible familial restrictions. Compared to the lower social classes, those born into lower-middle class families that compose the other half of the bulk of the population in the United States, have a much higher likelihood of attending college or technical school, often achieving at least a 2-year or part of a 4-year degree. Lower-middle class individuals with this sort of education tend to make more than their working class counterparts by $5,000 annually at the least and $45,000 annually at the most.
Upper-middle class individuals compose 15% of the total United States population and contain some of the most successful, fiscally secure, and well-educated people of all of the social classes, second only to the upper class, which composes a mere 1% of the total U.S. population. Those born into upper-middle class families usually have more access to education opportunities compared to lower classes due to a greater access to money and, therefore, typically have an significantly easier time gaining access to tertiary education, either from personal achievement or from their parents’/guardians’ money. This analysis exemplifies the way most of the social classes in the United States operate: minimal movement from one class to another due to an individuals’ propensity to naturally “flow” in the direction that they are most accustomed. This trend is even more applicable to those in the upper class, due to inheritances and to direct transfers of wealth being more common in this societal tier. The upper class also tends to achieve similar education as the upper-middle class, though perhaps at “better” institutions of learning.
Tertiary education after high school is something that less than half of the total population in the United States has, so far, embraced. Out of the total population, 29% of United States citizens possess baccalaureate degrees, which is both a disheartening notion and a major stumbling block for societal advancement.
Kue, Thomas. (2009). Bruce Lee on the Philosophy of a College Makeover
Bruce Lee used philosophy to apply to his martial art but if there’s one area it can also be applied, it is the college education system! Though his greatness is no longer among the living, his ideas and philosophical sayings remain to help the people of this world better themselves and their systems. The traditional system of majors and minors in universities are a problem; they are much too broad and spend too much time on irrelevant courses and not enough on the more important and specialized courses of a major. They are trying to force upon its students the knowledge of an irrelevant course; a course that the student does not need and thusly, does not want to take. I believe that Bruce Lee has something to add. Ideas of problem-based or cross-disciplinary programs have sprung up and received much criticism. There’s nothing wrong with the idea of customizing one’s major, in fact, there is good reason to implement such a system and if anyone would agree with this new idea, it is Bruce Lee.
Some may ask why we should change the current system at all. Bruce Lee, once said, “Man is constantly growing. And when he is bound by a set pattern of ideas or ‘Way’ of doing things, that’s when he stops growing” (Lee). Though he may have been referring to martial arts, there is an undeniable truth in this statement. As it applies to college majors, doing things the traditional way may not be the best way because it is bound by certain principles; following a certain curriculum that may be outdated or inefficient is one example. Following a system for a long time will cause a person to adapt to that given system, leaving no room for knowledge outside that system. What Lee is saying is that there needs to be a system that can adapt to anything that could potentially be a problem; custom majors can do just that.
What is so great about the idea of customizing a major? When talking about the philosophy of his art, Bruce Lee stated, “Absorb what is useful, discard what is not, add what is uniquely your own” (Lessons Learned). It is a simple yet brilliant philosophy. It tells us to take courses that are useful and do not take courses that are useless; and also add what ever is needed. In this way, efficiency will be maximized because we won’t be spending time on useless courses; one possibility is 3 years for completion of a typical Bachelor’s degree compared to the old system. Lee also stated, “When one has no form, one can be all forms; when one has no style, he can fit in with any style” (Lee). This quote expresses the idea of not expecting any one thing but being ready for everything that arrives; whatever problems arrive, there must be a system that can adapt to those problems. The unique thing about a customized major is that it can be tailored according to the problems of today; thus, giving rise to employment rates and giving meaning to a degree.
If the college system needed one word to describe a successful system, it would be: efficiency. Bruce Lee said, “Efficiency in sparring and fighting is not a matter of correct classical, traditional form. Efficiency is anything that scores” (Lee). In martial arts, form is the correct way to perform a technique. In the quote above, Lee is defining exactly what efficiency is and it is anything that scores, or hits the opponent—which is the goal. Efficiency in the school system should be as simple; it should be anything that reaches the goal. General education classes should be taken much later to give time for students to learn and focus on the core concepts of their particular major. The school system should be focused on the more important courses that relate to a given major so that it could be as efficient as possible.
The classic programs of universities simply aren’t able to adapt to the modern-day problems as quickly as a custom, problem-based major can. Change is encouraged because the old system has been implemented for quite some time now and in order to grow, things need to be changed a little bit. Variety is the spice of life and that’s exactly what the old system needs. When it comes to traditional programs, courses that will tailor to specific majors are needed in order to efficiently succeed in the real world. The system needs to be able to customize education for specific problems. There needs to be change, personalization and efficiency in higher education and custom majors can be the solution; Bruce Lee would agree.
Works Cited
Bruce Lee’s most famous quotes. 10 September 2009.
Lee, Daniel. “The ‘KNOWING IS NOT ENOUGH’ INTERVIEW This Month: Bruce Lee – Part I.” The Bruce Lee Foundation. 10 September 2009.
Lessons Learned from Bruce Lee. Sources of Insight. 3 July 2009. 10 September 2009.
Some may ask why we should change the current system at all. Bruce Lee, once said, “Man is constantly growing. And when he is bound by a set pattern of ideas or ‘Way’ of doing things, that’s when he stops growing” (Lee). Though he may have been referring to martial arts, there is an undeniable truth in this statement. As it applies to college majors, doing things the traditional way may not be the best way because it is bound by certain principles; following a certain curriculum that may be outdated or inefficient is one example. Following a system for a long time will cause a person to adapt to that given system, leaving no room for knowledge outside that system. What Lee is saying is that there needs to be a system that can adapt to anything that could potentially be a problem; custom majors can do just that.
What is so great about the idea of customizing a major? When talking about the philosophy of his art, Bruce Lee stated, “Absorb what is useful, discard what is not, add what is uniquely your own” (Lessons Learned). It is a simple yet brilliant philosophy. It tells us to take courses that are useful and do not take courses that are useless; and also add what ever is needed. In this way, efficiency will be maximized because we won’t be spending time on useless courses; one possibility is 3 years for completion of a typical Bachelor’s degree compared to the old system. Lee also stated, “When one has no form, one can be all forms; when one has no style, he can fit in with any style” (Lee). This quote expresses the idea of not expecting any one thing but being ready for everything that arrives; whatever problems arrive, there must be a system that can adapt to those problems. The unique thing about a customized major is that it can be tailored according to the problems of today; thus, giving rise to employment rates and giving meaning to a degree.
If the college system needed one word to describe a successful system, it would be: efficiency. Bruce Lee said, “Efficiency in sparring and fighting is not a matter of correct classical, traditional form. Efficiency is anything that scores” (Lee). In martial arts, form is the correct way to perform a technique. In the quote above, Lee is defining exactly what efficiency is and it is anything that scores, or hits the opponent—which is the goal. Efficiency in the school system should be as simple; it should be anything that reaches the goal. General education classes should be taken much later to give time for students to learn and focus on the core concepts of their particular major. The school system should be focused on the more important courses that relate to a given major so that it could be as efficient as possible.
The classic programs of universities simply aren’t able to adapt to the modern-day problems as quickly as a custom, problem-based major can. Change is encouraged because the old system has been implemented for quite some time now and in order to grow, things need to be changed a little bit. Variety is the spice of life and that’s exactly what the old system needs. When it comes to traditional programs, courses that will tailor to specific majors are needed in order to efficiently succeed in the real world. The system needs to be able to customize education for specific problems. There needs to be change, personalization and efficiency in higher education and custom majors can be the solution; Bruce Lee would agree.
Works Cited
Bruce Lee’s most famous quotes. 10 September 2009.
Lee, Daniel. “The ‘KNOWING IS NOT ENOUGH’ INTERVIEW This Month: Bruce Lee – Part I.” The Bruce Lee Foundation. 10 September 2009.
Lessons Learned from Bruce Lee. Sources of Insight. 3 July 2009. 10 September 2009.
Gray, Darrell. (2009). Costs of Indecision in Choosing a College Major
”No wind serves him who addresses his voyage to no certain port.” This quote is very true, especially when applied to the college experience. Every school year, college freshmen show up to school with no idea of what they want to become or possessing any future plans. Other freshmen show up with a definite career and major in mind but find themselves changing majors by the second semester. This indecision is not a problem early on, but if it goes on too long it can end up negatively affecting the student.
Many people can mistake being undecided for being indecisive. These can be two totally different things. Being undecided can stem from lack of knowledge of different careers. For example, it wouldn’t be smart to major in Athletic Training if you knew nothing about it. Going blindly into any major will most likely result in a change to another major. On the other hand, students who are indecisive or apprehensive about choosing a major may have deeper issues with decision making. They may always have problems making decisions and sticking to them, even when they have enough information. Being undecided may interfere with college decision making, but indecisiveness can cause other problems.
Being uncertain about a college major can really cost in the long run. MSNBC.com writer Gayle B. Ronan states, “With tuition averaging $13,833 a year at public universities, indecisiveness can drain college savings accounts as students restart course sequences or transfer schools — losing credits in the process.” With these types of prices, most people cannot afford to be in school that long, especially in this economy. Perhaps these prices could be a deciding factor on whether or not a college student drops out of school. This problem may not only cost money, but also time. All these different courses for different majors can cause students to be in school for excessive amounts of time. These students could possibly be in college for six years trying to graduate. “Roughly 40 percent of those who start a four-year degree program still have not earned one after year six.”, states Gayle B. Ronan. All this unnecessary stress can be avoided by having a solid plan for success.
Preventive steps can be taken to avoid all these unnecessary problems. Students could begin by looking at hobbies. For students who are still in high school, a trip to the guidance counselor could be a great help. They can take a look at these hobbies and suggest certain careers that could be related. They can also provide students with valuable materials to help them make career choices. Other things to take in consideration are personal strengths and weaknesses. Students who excel in a certain subjects might major in that field. Students should also consider what type of environment they would be interested in working in. Outdoors, or in an office? Interacting with others, or secluded? Hands-on, or not? These all should be taken into consideration. The next step is to find out more about related. These can easily be found with a search of the Internet. That search will give descriptions of different careers in many fields. Something that could really help is to shadow someone who is already in the profession. This first-hand view will show exactly what is involved in the career in a day-to-day basis. This can help the person determine whether or not a career in that field will be of interest. With a selection of careers narrowed down, a major would be a lot easier to declare. If a major cannot be decided on before the student reaches college, advisors can be a big help. Also, most colleges have student centers where career help can be found. Students don’t have to worry too much about not having a major because there a so many ways to find one.
Choosing a college major can be a life-changing decision. It can be the difference between hating a job and enjoying a successful career. People say that it isn’t work if it’s enjoyable. Students should enter college with an idea of what interests them. They may take their time choosing the right major, but taking too long could be detrimental. A famous quote of Aneurin Bevan states,” We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over.” Though it won’t be as fatal as the quote, college students who are indecisive in choosing a major will no doubt face some negative consequences.
Many people can mistake being undecided for being indecisive. These can be two totally different things. Being undecided can stem from lack of knowledge of different careers. For example, it wouldn’t be smart to major in Athletic Training if you knew nothing about it. Going blindly into any major will most likely result in a change to another major. On the other hand, students who are indecisive or apprehensive about choosing a major may have deeper issues with decision making. They may always have problems making decisions and sticking to them, even when they have enough information. Being undecided may interfere with college decision making, but indecisiveness can cause other problems.
Being uncertain about a college major can really cost in the long run. MSNBC.com writer Gayle B. Ronan states, “With tuition averaging $13,833 a year at public universities, indecisiveness can drain college savings accounts as students restart course sequences or transfer schools — losing credits in the process.” With these types of prices, most people cannot afford to be in school that long, especially in this economy. Perhaps these prices could be a deciding factor on whether or not a college student drops out of school. This problem may not only cost money, but also time. All these different courses for different majors can cause students to be in school for excessive amounts of time. These students could possibly be in college for six years trying to graduate. “Roughly 40 percent of those who start a four-year degree program still have not earned one after year six.”, states Gayle B. Ronan. All this unnecessary stress can be avoided by having a solid plan for success.
Preventive steps can be taken to avoid all these unnecessary problems. Students could begin by looking at hobbies. For students who are still in high school, a trip to the guidance counselor could be a great help. They can take a look at these hobbies and suggest certain careers that could be related. They can also provide students with valuable materials to help them make career choices. Other things to take in consideration are personal strengths and weaknesses. Students who excel in a certain subjects might major in that field. Students should also consider what type of environment they would be interested in working in. Outdoors, or in an office? Interacting with others, or secluded? Hands-on, or not? These all should be taken into consideration. The next step is to find out more about related. These can easily be found with a search of the Internet. That search will give descriptions of different careers in many fields. Something that could really help is to shadow someone who is already in the profession. This first-hand view will show exactly what is involved in the career in a day-to-day basis. This can help the person determine whether or not a career in that field will be of interest. With a selection of careers narrowed down, a major would be a lot easier to declare. If a major cannot be decided on before the student reaches college, advisors can be a big help. Also, most colleges have student centers where career help can be found. Students don’t have to worry too much about not having a major because there a so many ways to find one.
Choosing a college major can be a life-changing decision. It can be the difference between hating a job and enjoying a successful career. People say that it isn’t work if it’s enjoyable. Students should enter college with an idea of what interests them. They may take their time choosing the right major, but taking too long could be detrimental. A famous quote of Aneurin Bevan states,” We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over.” Though it won’t be as fatal as the quote, college students who are indecisive in choosing a major will no doubt face some negative consequences.
Bower et. al. (2009). Gen Psyc Brain
Ben Bower and three other soon to be identified students created this brain model today.
Russell, Thomas, & Dawson. (2009). Gen Psyc Brain
Lauren Russell, Kendall Thomas, and Stephanie Dawson created this brain model today.
Kasper & Malawagedara. (2009) Gen Psyc Brain
Dan Kasper and Nimendra Malawagedara created this brain model today.
Chafin, Tyler. (2009). Education Evolves Naturally
During undergraduate students’ educational careers, there comes a time when they must determine a course of study. There are many factors that influence students’ decisions, such as socioeconomic background, probability of success, and the expected earnings and job security after graduation. “Money makes the world go ‘round” as the saying goes, so people go where they believe the money will be. Most people who aspire to become doctors are doing it for the money, no matter how passionately they babble about “helping people.” That’s nonsense; not very many people are willing to go to school for twelve years just so they can help people, but when you throw in the possibility of six-digit incomes now the applicants come rolling in.
Expected salary and certainty of job availability are probably the leading contributors to a student’s choice when declaring a major. Orazem and Mattila (1986) showed with their study on the occupational choices of high school graduates that the probability of a graduate choosing one occupation over another varies directly with the return in capital. Also, it can be assumed that the probability of success has an impact on students’ choices of major as well, as it is necessary to complete a degree in order to achieve the associated earnings.
It is true that not much has changed in the methods of practice in higher education for the past many years, and on this topic Glenn and Fischer (2009) asked “ Is that constancy a sign of health or a sign of stagnation?” I agree with the former. Perhaps the reason why nothing has changed is because it works. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is another old saying and I believe it holds true in this instance. It is the nature of things to develop themselves over time, as Darwin explained with his theory of evolution. When an organism has no need of change, it doesn’t. Many examples of this can be found in nature. If our system of majors has not evolved much, than we can assume that it has no need to. According to the U.S. Department of Education, the top ten fields of study in Baccalaureate institutions in 1997 were as follows: Business, Social Sciences, Education, Health Professions, Psychology, Visual and Performing Arts, Engineering, Communications, Biological Sciences, and English Language and Literature. Their research also shows that these subjects held approximately the same ranks and percent of total undergraduate degrees conferred in 2007. This consistency can be attributed to the fact that it must be worth four years of time and thousands of dollars to attain such a degree. I don’t believe people would continue to study these fields if it had no desired outcome nor yielded a profit, as college is first and foremost an investment. A university is a service industry, with its purpose being to provide students with the skills necessary to compete in the job market.
In his “The End of the University as We Know it,” Dr. Taylor proposed turning our universities into controlled machines geared towards “solving vexing problems” and bending itself to the needs of society. He proposes that a degree in a problem area such as “Water” would be a good idea, but what happens when the problem is solved? What happens when our factory produces enough “Water” majors that one of them fulfills all of our watery needs? What then do all of these people do for work? Also, such a degree plan has just as much potential for overpopulating the field and producing graduates for non-existent jobs as does a degree in Spanish Literature. And if we expend all of our efforts on saving things, what happens to learning just for the sake of it? Taylor also said “ The emphasis on narrow scholarship also encourages an educational system that has become a process of cloning.” I also disagree with this statement, scholarship builds upon itself. A professor that “cultivates” a student of similar interests a future professor or professional who has the potential to in turn develop the field in which he studies in his own way. Such was the discovery of DNA for example. What started as a pea garden by a Moravian monk became the double helix model of Watson and Crick, and has come much further since.
Our system of education has come a long way from its origins, evolving at its own pace, and will reach a natural equilibrium with any problems that might arise. No meddling necessary.
Expected salary and certainty of job availability are probably the leading contributors to a student’s choice when declaring a major. Orazem and Mattila (1986) showed with their study on the occupational choices of high school graduates that the probability of a graduate choosing one occupation over another varies directly with the return in capital. Also, it can be assumed that the probability of success has an impact on students’ choices of major as well, as it is necessary to complete a degree in order to achieve the associated earnings.
It is true that not much has changed in the methods of practice in higher education for the past many years, and on this topic Glenn and Fischer (2009) asked “ Is that constancy a sign of health or a sign of stagnation?” I agree with the former. Perhaps the reason why nothing has changed is because it works. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is another old saying and I believe it holds true in this instance. It is the nature of things to develop themselves over time, as Darwin explained with his theory of evolution. When an organism has no need of change, it doesn’t. Many examples of this can be found in nature. If our system of majors has not evolved much, than we can assume that it has no need to. According to the U.S. Department of Education, the top ten fields of study in Baccalaureate institutions in 1997 were as follows: Business, Social Sciences, Education, Health Professions, Psychology, Visual and Performing Arts, Engineering, Communications, Biological Sciences, and English Language and Literature. Their research also shows that these subjects held approximately the same ranks and percent of total undergraduate degrees conferred in 2007. This consistency can be attributed to the fact that it must be worth four years of time and thousands of dollars to attain such a degree. I don’t believe people would continue to study these fields if it had no desired outcome nor yielded a profit, as college is first and foremost an investment. A university is a service industry, with its purpose being to provide students with the skills necessary to compete in the job market.
In his “The End of the University as We Know it,” Dr. Taylor proposed turning our universities into controlled machines geared towards “solving vexing problems” and bending itself to the needs of society. He proposes that a degree in a problem area such as “Water” would be a good idea, but what happens when the problem is solved? What happens when our factory produces enough “Water” majors that one of them fulfills all of our watery needs? What then do all of these people do for work? Also, such a degree plan has just as much potential for overpopulating the field and producing graduates for non-existent jobs as does a degree in Spanish Literature. And if we expend all of our efforts on saving things, what happens to learning just for the sake of it? Taylor also said “ The emphasis on narrow scholarship also encourages an educational system that has become a process of cloning.” I also disagree with this statement, scholarship builds upon itself. A professor that “cultivates” a student of similar interests a future professor or professional who has the potential to in turn develop the field in which he studies in his own way. Such was the discovery of DNA for example. What started as a pea garden by a Moravian monk became the double helix model of Watson and Crick, and has come much further since.
Our system of education has come a long way from its origins, evolving at its own pace, and will reach a natural equilibrium with any problems that might arise. No meddling necessary.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Russell, Lauren. (2009). The Negative Side of Specialized Education
The typical day of an elementary student involves little more than simple reading, writing, arithmetic, and nap time. Those academic basics must be mastered before success can be attained in more complex fields. Such is true in all areas of life. Michael Phelps, for instance, had to learn the techniques of the freestyle stroke before he won his first gold medal. Chemists, too, require advanced training in reading, writing, and arithmetic prior to observing and analyzing, publishing articles, and balancing equations. Adapting colleges to provide custom student-made majors as opposed to a general education would not only allow students to stray away from learning the basics, but it would also mean fewer job opportunities for graduates, inflict an even greater financial crisis on colleges, and put more pressure on the shoulders of already panic stricken teenagers who wish to enroll in college.
Generic majors, such as chemistry, art, and business, open the doors for many occupations. With a major in chemistry, a student can choose a career from many different sectors including research, pharmacy, education, and testing. If chemistry majors encounter jobs that do not suit their desires, many different occupations requiring their chemical expertise are still open to them. Specialization of degrees decreases the number of jobs available, dooming thousands to a career they do not enjoy. The alternative would be returning to school, which many cannot afford. Specialization within an art major would also limit job opportunities. An amazing and diverse talent in the art world could be smothered if that talent could only afford to major in one genre. For example, a student acquires a degree in creating modern abstract art, but is also very capable of drawing still life. Because the student, most likely, cannot afford to pursue two different majors, then, on paper, the student is only qualified to fill jobs involving the creating of modern abstract art. Because of the emphasis employers put on applicant’s résumés, great job opportunities involving the drawing of still life would close to this student, regardless of how capable the student is. Specialization in the world of business and marketing majors would restrict students to a particular company. On the other hand, with a general degree in marketing, business and marketing majors could perform well at a variety of businesses. General degrees prepare students for careers in many different sectors of the job world. Specialized degrees would do nothing more than put limits on qualifications and limit opportunities.
The specialization of degrees would wreak havoc on the majority of colleges. Because the general degrees would be broken down into more specific degrees, different courses would be offered to meet all of the requirements. The number of courses a college or university offers is proportional to the number of professors that college or university employs. More professors employed could either mean a decrease in the payment that any given professor receives or a decrease in money allotted to other aspects of college life such as campus safety and technology. If a decrease in professors’ pay occurs, the increased number of professors needed would be more important than their experience. Colleges and universities would lose the ability to accept only the most qualified faculty applicants in their fields and would have to settle for those willing to accept a decreased salary. A decrease in money allotted elsewhere, such as for student activities, would have a negative effect on the students’ attitudes. Technology is very expensive, yet also very essential in the learning and research process. While parents are generally proud that their child is going to college, they are often more concerned with their child’s safety rather than their education. A decrease in money allotted towards campus safety would cause a decrease in parental approval ratings. When parents see the decline of positive parental ratings, they would encourage their student not to go to that institution and those colleges would have to be less selective. Only colleges with more than sufficient funds would benefit from specialized majors, but the majority of schools would probably wither away in their increasing debt and eventually perish.
The first two years of college are when students supposedly find themselves. Even though most colleges require students to sample all areas of academic study, picking one to be immersed for the greater part of a lifespan is quite intimidating. At many colleges and universities, it is normal for students to switch majors multiple times. Mainstream America defines the college experience as one where people find themselves and also enjoy the greatest experience of their lives. Such thoughts put high expectations on the college experience and many students discover that finding themselves is a lot harder than expected. College is expensive for most and changing majors means more classes and more money shelled out to the university. Picking from a general spectrum of fields of study is stressful enough. Specializing majors into more specific fields would provide students with more options that would affect the rest of their lives when they are still unsure of themselves and what they want.
Mastering the basics is an essential part for success in anything. In order to achieve success, students must enjoy what they are doing, and understand their interests from all possible points of view. Even mathematicians need to be able to write if they want to present research. Not requiring the mathematicians to take English courses would deny them of essential abilities such as speech writing. Requiring most students to take a variety of courses (e.g. Comp. I, College Alg., U.S. Gov.) is essential for a deeper understanding of subjects. Denying students a general education for a more specific one only causes harm. Specialized degree programs without a general studies requirement would limit job opportunities available to the students, put the majority of colleges and universities in financial trouble, and add to the unnecessary stress teenagers are put through.
Generic majors, such as chemistry, art, and business, open the doors for many occupations. With a major in chemistry, a student can choose a career from many different sectors including research, pharmacy, education, and testing. If chemistry majors encounter jobs that do not suit their desires, many different occupations requiring their chemical expertise are still open to them. Specialization of degrees decreases the number of jobs available, dooming thousands to a career they do not enjoy. The alternative would be returning to school, which many cannot afford. Specialization within an art major would also limit job opportunities. An amazing and diverse talent in the art world could be smothered if that talent could only afford to major in one genre. For example, a student acquires a degree in creating modern abstract art, but is also very capable of drawing still life. Because the student, most likely, cannot afford to pursue two different majors, then, on paper, the student is only qualified to fill jobs involving the creating of modern abstract art. Because of the emphasis employers put on applicant’s résumés, great job opportunities involving the drawing of still life would close to this student, regardless of how capable the student is. Specialization in the world of business and marketing majors would restrict students to a particular company. On the other hand, with a general degree in marketing, business and marketing majors could perform well at a variety of businesses. General degrees prepare students for careers in many different sectors of the job world. Specialized degrees would do nothing more than put limits on qualifications and limit opportunities.
The specialization of degrees would wreak havoc on the majority of colleges. Because the general degrees would be broken down into more specific degrees, different courses would be offered to meet all of the requirements. The number of courses a college or university offers is proportional to the number of professors that college or university employs. More professors employed could either mean a decrease in the payment that any given professor receives or a decrease in money allotted to other aspects of college life such as campus safety and technology. If a decrease in professors’ pay occurs, the increased number of professors needed would be more important than their experience. Colleges and universities would lose the ability to accept only the most qualified faculty applicants in their fields and would have to settle for those willing to accept a decreased salary. A decrease in money allotted elsewhere, such as for student activities, would have a negative effect on the students’ attitudes. Technology is very expensive, yet also very essential in the learning and research process. While parents are generally proud that their child is going to college, they are often more concerned with their child’s safety rather than their education. A decrease in money allotted towards campus safety would cause a decrease in parental approval ratings. When parents see the decline of positive parental ratings, they would encourage their student not to go to that institution and those colleges would have to be less selective. Only colleges with more than sufficient funds would benefit from specialized majors, but the majority of schools would probably wither away in their increasing debt and eventually perish.
The first two years of college are when students supposedly find themselves. Even though most colleges require students to sample all areas of academic study, picking one to be immersed for the greater part of a lifespan is quite intimidating. At many colleges and universities, it is normal for students to switch majors multiple times. Mainstream America defines the college experience as one where people find themselves and also enjoy the greatest experience of their lives. Such thoughts put high expectations on the college experience and many students discover that finding themselves is a lot harder than expected. College is expensive for most and changing majors means more classes and more money shelled out to the university. Picking from a general spectrum of fields of study is stressful enough. Specializing majors into more specific fields would provide students with more options that would affect the rest of their lives when they are still unsure of themselves and what they want.
Mastering the basics is an essential part for success in anything. In order to achieve success, students must enjoy what they are doing, and understand their interests from all possible points of view. Even mathematicians need to be able to write if they want to present research. Not requiring the mathematicians to take English courses would deny them of essential abilities such as speech writing. Requiring most students to take a variety of courses (e.g. Comp. I, College Alg., U.S. Gov.) is essential for a deeper understanding of subjects. Denying students a general education for a more specific one only causes harm. Specialized degree programs without a general studies requirement would limit job opportunities available to the students, put the majority of colleges and universities in financial trouble, and add to the unnecessary stress teenagers are put through.
Wright, Kiley. (2009). Colleges of the Future
Many believe that colleges today are inadequate institutions that can only be improved by a complete and total reformation of the academy as we know it. The first academy ever known was Plato’s Academy. Plato bought the land from Academus and thus named his institution the Academy, in which knowledge was sought after on a daily basis and a thirst for that knowledge was all that was ever required of the students. These basics have not changed much but since Plato nearly all else has. Since the times of Plato, our colleges have come a long way. Those changes have involved much debate, and colleges would never have come this far without it. In retrospect it only makes sense that colleges should constantly be in a state of change.
The argument that colleges should be completely reformed is, in my opinion, a bit extreme; there’s nothing wrong with change but it doesn’t have to happen all at once. One change has been the addition of new majors, a reasonable and to be expected idea that allows colleges to keep up with the times and to teach what needs to be taught rather than the same old topics. New jobs are always being created and because today’s work force continues to adapt to the world’s needs, colleges should do the same. As technology advances, our way of life does as well, colleges must work, no matter how challenging or difficult or time consuming it may be to advance new methods of teaching and students’ ways of learning. Two new majors are Sustainability and Public Health. Sustainability supports the idea that we, as a country, should focus on taking care of our planet. Our Earth may not last much longer at the rate we are going, using up all of our natural resources and destroying the ozone destroys it day be day. Public Health is a big issue in today’s society, and already we are seeing the country attempt some big changes in this area. With the great demand for recruits in health care professions there is no better major to create than Public Health. Both of these majors could tie closely into other existing ones such as biology one of our good old “normal majors;” it should not be abolished, but simply polished.
The ideas we should study today ought to come from current crises rather than what style Shakespeare wrote his plays in. I’m not saying that his plays shouldn’t be studied, but in my opinion, such study should not be a life long commitment. There are other areas in life that could be studied that would be much more useful to society. Take Sustainability for example, the fact that we need to take care of the planet if we’re going to remain on it for any long period of time is no secret. But, what are we truly doing to protect it? All across the nation, communities are going green and its all a part of sustainability. This major can be taken in many different directions, it can be thrown in with the liberal arts or with business; it’s just a matter of what area it fits best.
One other example would be a Public Health major, which better allows you to be prepared to go into any health field area you wish. The idea today is that any major will get you to medical school which isn’t a problem, but many majors won’t properly prepare you for medical school. The problem is that it’s hard to match courseloads for new majors with the prerequisites for admission to medical school. At this point much thought and consideration should be put into the decision to major in a particular subject.
Degrees in majors such as Sustainability and Public Health not only provide jobs that are greatly need but they also keep students from pursuing majors in “underwater basket weaving.” It seems that growth is definitely the only option in higher education; the questions are, however how much growth, what type of growth, and how quickly should this growth occur?
The argument that colleges should be completely reformed is, in my opinion, a bit extreme; there’s nothing wrong with change but it doesn’t have to happen all at once. One change has been the addition of new majors, a reasonable and to be expected idea that allows colleges to keep up with the times and to teach what needs to be taught rather than the same old topics. New jobs are always being created and because today’s work force continues to adapt to the world’s needs, colleges should do the same. As technology advances, our way of life does as well, colleges must work, no matter how challenging or difficult or time consuming it may be to advance new methods of teaching and students’ ways of learning. Two new majors are Sustainability and Public Health. Sustainability supports the idea that we, as a country, should focus on taking care of our planet. Our Earth may not last much longer at the rate we are going, using up all of our natural resources and destroying the ozone destroys it day be day. Public Health is a big issue in today’s society, and already we are seeing the country attempt some big changes in this area. With the great demand for recruits in health care professions there is no better major to create than Public Health. Both of these majors could tie closely into other existing ones such as biology one of our good old “normal majors;” it should not be abolished, but simply polished.
The ideas we should study today ought to come from current crises rather than what style Shakespeare wrote his plays in. I’m not saying that his plays shouldn’t be studied, but in my opinion, such study should not be a life long commitment. There are other areas in life that could be studied that would be much more useful to society. Take Sustainability for example, the fact that we need to take care of the planet if we’re going to remain on it for any long period of time is no secret. But, what are we truly doing to protect it? All across the nation, communities are going green and its all a part of sustainability. This major can be taken in many different directions, it can be thrown in with the liberal arts or with business; it’s just a matter of what area it fits best.
One other example would be a Public Health major, which better allows you to be prepared to go into any health field area you wish. The idea today is that any major will get you to medical school which isn’t a problem, but many majors won’t properly prepare you for medical school. The problem is that it’s hard to match courseloads for new majors with the prerequisites for admission to medical school. At this point much thought and consideration should be put into the decision to major in a particular subject.
Degrees in majors such as Sustainability and Public Health not only provide jobs that are greatly need but they also keep students from pursuing majors in “underwater basket weaving.” It seems that growth is definitely the only option in higher education; the questions are, however how much growth, what type of growth, and how quickly should this growth occur?
Stubbs, Monica. (2009). Education Reform
In the United States, education reform is an issue. The educational system graduates many uneducated students every year. There are students who have several credit hours in a certain subject; but when asked a question pertaining to the subject reply,” I do not know the first thing about that stuff.” Earning credit ought to mean that something was learned. Thus, the way students are taught needs to be reformed. By reforming the educational system in the following ways, we can achieve a well-educated population.
If students were in a learning environment in which they could have more one-on-one time with professors, they would better understand the material. In a class that contains more than twenty students, some students are afraid to ask questions when they do not understand because they are too shy to speak in front of a large group of students; they believe that if they speak, everyone in the class will think they are stupid. Classes should not exceed twenty pupils simply because it helps improve the entire classroom atmosphere. If educators teach small classes, they are more apt to recognize when some of the students do not understand the subject matter. When instructors realize that part of the class is lost, they can stop and re-explain. By doing so, the students would better grasp the information. The negative side to having only twenty students per instructor is there would soon be a lack of professors. In some academic areas, there are already not enough professors to teach the existing courses. Another downside is that more professors would need to be hired which in turn could cause schools to lose money. Reducing class sizes is not the only piece to amending the education system.
Instead of assigning students meaningless and agonizing bookwork that can end up being copied from a fellow classmate, make the students participate in hands-on activities where their brains are forced to envision real-life situations. The only subjects that need mind-numbing bookwork are English and Math. These subjects require memorization of rules. The only way to remember them is to work examples over and over. In all other classes, instruction should be mostly based on hands-on activities. Anytime bookwork is required for a grade, there is a risk that students will copy the answers from fellow classmates. Doing so helps students in no way. If most bookwork were eliminated, pupils would be forced to learn the material through experience. The problem with switching to mostly hands-on activities is time. Hands-on activities are more time consuming than are lectures or bookwork. In some high schools, students attend 8 forty-five minute classes daily. After roll is taken and the students settle down, there is only about thirty minutes left. During this short time period very little can be accomplished. No teacher or student wants to even consider a longer school day. Today, nearly all states impose a certain structure upon teachers. If teachers follow those structures properly, nearly every minute of class time is used up, leaving no time for extra hands-on activities. If the states’ regulations were more flexible, then teachers could incorporate more projects into their classes. With more projects, students would learn more from experience.
In addition to shrinking class sizes and becoming more hands-on, students should not be required to take paper tests. There are people who have test-taking fears which cause them to blank out. In place of written tests, students should be allowed to demonstrate what they have learned. For instance, in a Spanish class, the student should have to speak Spanish to the teacher, write in Spanish, and translate what is being said. Using this method, knowledge is put into action; meaning the pupil learned the information rather than memorized it. The disadvantage to this plan is it would be extremely difficult and tedious for the teachers to test every student individually. But these tests would be more accurate and worth the effort because the professors would know exactly how much information the students had retained; therefore students would receive a more accurate grade.
By using these approaches, the educational process could be modified to produce more graduates who are better educated in all aspects, not just in their major areas. These changes would eventually create the most educated workforce in existence. Having the most educated workforce would be a great accomplishment for the United States.
If students were in a learning environment in which they could have more one-on-one time with professors, they would better understand the material. In a class that contains more than twenty students, some students are afraid to ask questions when they do not understand because they are too shy to speak in front of a large group of students; they believe that if they speak, everyone in the class will think they are stupid. Classes should not exceed twenty pupils simply because it helps improve the entire classroom atmosphere. If educators teach small classes, they are more apt to recognize when some of the students do not understand the subject matter. When instructors realize that part of the class is lost, they can stop and re-explain. By doing so, the students would better grasp the information. The negative side to having only twenty students per instructor is there would soon be a lack of professors. In some academic areas, there are already not enough professors to teach the existing courses. Another downside is that more professors would need to be hired which in turn could cause schools to lose money. Reducing class sizes is not the only piece to amending the education system.
Instead of assigning students meaningless and agonizing bookwork that can end up being copied from a fellow classmate, make the students participate in hands-on activities where their brains are forced to envision real-life situations. The only subjects that need mind-numbing bookwork are English and Math. These subjects require memorization of rules. The only way to remember them is to work examples over and over. In all other classes, instruction should be mostly based on hands-on activities. Anytime bookwork is required for a grade, there is a risk that students will copy the answers from fellow classmates. Doing so helps students in no way. If most bookwork were eliminated, pupils would be forced to learn the material through experience. The problem with switching to mostly hands-on activities is time. Hands-on activities are more time consuming than are lectures or bookwork. In some high schools, students attend 8 forty-five minute classes daily. After roll is taken and the students settle down, there is only about thirty minutes left. During this short time period very little can be accomplished. No teacher or student wants to even consider a longer school day. Today, nearly all states impose a certain structure upon teachers. If teachers follow those structures properly, nearly every minute of class time is used up, leaving no time for extra hands-on activities. If the states’ regulations were more flexible, then teachers could incorporate more projects into their classes. With more projects, students would learn more from experience.
In addition to shrinking class sizes and becoming more hands-on, students should not be required to take paper tests. There are people who have test-taking fears which cause them to blank out. In place of written tests, students should be allowed to demonstrate what they have learned. For instance, in a Spanish class, the student should have to speak Spanish to the teacher, write in Spanish, and translate what is being said. Using this method, knowledge is put into action; meaning the pupil learned the information rather than memorized it. The disadvantage to this plan is it would be extremely difficult and tedious for the teachers to test every student individually. But these tests would be more accurate and worth the effort because the professors would know exactly how much information the students had retained; therefore students would receive a more accurate grade.
By using these approaches, the educational process could be modified to produce more graduates who are better educated in all aspects, not just in their major areas. These changes would eventually create the most educated workforce in existence. Having the most educated workforce would be a great accomplishment for the United States.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Harned, Kahle. (2009). The Evolution of College Courses
It is hard to recognize the similarities between the biology classes of the 1950s and those of today. How will our coursework look in another fifty years? Majors will change from field-centered, such as biology and literature, where classes teach a single, broad subject, to “object” and “issue” focused majors that gather insight from many other fields of study and synthesize it. With the advent of technology infiltrating every aspect of our lives, and with the need for people to work on specific problems, universities will create more and more specialized degrees that revolve around issues and subjects such as water, species extinction, and even Shakespeare. Specialized degree programs will also draw on more outside sources to make a variety of subjects mesh together and make to connections between the different areas of our world.
Utilizing the Internet, technology such as Blackboard, and other programs to integrate knowledge and materials that will allow majors to keep up with our evolving world. Mark Taylor said that the modern universities are based on the model Immanuel Kant proposed. That is a “mass production” model. With technology at the point it is today, and ever evolving, universities will be able to provide specialized majors for students, tailored to their needs. Well known schools such as Stanford University have already put their classes online for the world to see, for free; thus encouraging students to take in subjects they wouldn't normally be able to, in order to expand their education. These classes allow students to partake in a variety of coursework to stimulate their minds beyond what they would normally learn in their major.
Many universities are already working on new degrees and curricula that focus on issues our world is facing or individual fields that focus on just one subject Some examples are courses in environmental conservation and nanotechnology in the science world, or a course on Shakespeare in the literature world. Given time, I believe our universities will migrate to the more focused programs and offerings. Online classes and courses already give students a chance to synthesize new material and learn about subjects that would never be normally offered in their major.
Colleges today are integrating curricula in new and exciting ways, and this will continue and be expanded on in the future. In College Makeover, Robert Connor explains his thoughts that universities should specialize in subjects and offer courses to prepare for what the students are going to be doing in their careers. Under this coursework he advocates that students would engage in learning with other students, thus connecting a variety of ideas in very different fields such as biology, literature, and math. They would sit with students who major in these fields, (or connect online as it may be) and apply what their major teaches to the underlying themes in all literary text. Mark C. Taylor of Columbia University has a similar outlook and he has already called for “radically interdisciplinary education,” where issue-focused majors could “synthesize knowledge from the humanities, sociology, and the natural sciences.”
With college classes becoming more interconnected, professors moving to the Internet, adapting their teaching styles to better suit the medium, and degrees being offered in more specialized fields, current college education is going to evolve and change into something very different in the future. Students will earn degrees that match the requirements of their careers, and they will be able to gain a broader understanding of the world through interconnected classes and new technology.
Utilizing the Internet, technology such as Blackboard, and other programs to integrate knowledge and materials that will allow majors to keep up with our evolving world. Mark Taylor said that the modern universities are based on the model Immanuel Kant proposed. That is a “mass production” model. With technology at the point it is today, and ever evolving, universities will be able to provide specialized majors for students, tailored to their needs. Well known schools such as Stanford University have already put their classes online for the world to see, for free; thus encouraging students to take in subjects they wouldn't normally be able to, in order to expand their education. These classes allow students to partake in a variety of coursework to stimulate their minds beyond what they would normally learn in their major.
Many universities are already working on new degrees and curricula that focus on issues our world is facing or individual fields that focus on just one subject Some examples are courses in environmental conservation and nanotechnology in the science world, or a course on Shakespeare in the literature world. Given time, I believe our universities will migrate to the more focused programs and offerings. Online classes and courses already give students a chance to synthesize new material and learn about subjects that would never be normally offered in their major.
Colleges today are integrating curricula in new and exciting ways, and this will continue and be expanded on in the future. In College Makeover, Robert Connor explains his thoughts that universities should specialize in subjects and offer courses to prepare for what the students are going to be doing in their careers. Under this coursework he advocates that students would engage in learning with other students, thus connecting a variety of ideas in very different fields such as biology, literature, and math. They would sit with students who major in these fields, (or connect online as it may be) and apply what their major teaches to the underlying themes in all literary text. Mark C. Taylor of Columbia University has a similar outlook and he has already called for “radically interdisciplinary education,” where issue-focused majors could “synthesize knowledge from the humanities, sociology, and the natural sciences.”
With college classes becoming more interconnected, professors moving to the Internet, adapting their teaching styles to better suit the medium, and degrees being offered in more specialized fields, current college education is going to evolve and change into something very different in the future. Students will earn degrees that match the requirements of their careers, and they will be able to gain a broader understanding of the world through interconnected classes and new technology.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Dhungana, Singha. (2009). Restructuring the Education System
The current American undergraduate system should be restructured. The system of educational majors that we are using today first appeared in the 1877 Johns Hopkins University catalog. Many years have passed and educational institutions still have the same system of predefined majors and minors. The world has changed and so have the needs of the people. The education system should be changed while taking into account the interests of students, demands of time, and of the job market.
Many of the American colleges and universities provide a liberal education. In liberal education, the ideal is for students to develop their critical and rational thinking skills in science, arts, literature, math, psychology and philosophy by studying a general curriculum while at the same time concentrating on a specific subject; their major. Instead of studying the same general education courses, students should be allowed to navigate through the curriculum on their own and select the courses that best fit their interests.
The establishment of new industries and the development of new technologies have changed the job requirements for workers and the types of work available. Students who enter college or universities with the dream of getting good jobs after graduation get frustrated when they discover themselves unfit for the new jobs. To cope with this problem, students should be trained on the latest technologies developed in their field of study and should at least be educated about them. The best way is to include internships in such industries as a major part of the curriculum.
Another major problem is the tenure system. When professors get tenured (hold positions in their departments for long time) many develop a kind of autonomy. These professors do not want to update themselves and do not want to retire from their jobs, creating scarcity of teaching jobs for new graduates. So, the tenure system should be replaced by eight-year contracts which may be renewed or terminated depending on the performance of the professors. If professors update themselves with the latest technologies and developments, they should be promoted. At the same time, there should be a retirement system for professors who refuse to update their skills so that those who do work hard are rewarded.
The baccalaureate colleges, which are known for their traditional teaching methods, should adopt new policies so that they can develop students who are more capable of performing jobs. They could do so by reducing the number of undergraduate years to three and then coupling that to a two-year master’s degree. In the undergraduate years, they could teach the core subjects and help students gain the basic skills and concepts necessary for coping with the real-life issues. Later, they could promote more practical approaches and offer internships during students’ graduate years. This exposure to new approaches and internships along with exposure to real-life issues will better prepare students for jobs at businesses and nonprofit organizations.
There should be collaboration among education institutions to ensure that the students get better learning options. As described by Mr. Mark C. Taylor in his article ‘End the university as we know it’, it is possible to have a system of teleconferencing between two or more colleges where each college can help the other in whatever department it is good at. For example, if a college is good at molecular biology and another good at modern physics, faculty from the first college can teach molecular biology to the students of the second college while faculty from the second college can teach modern physics to the students of the first college. That way, the students will benefit and the cost of running courses will also be lowered for both of the colleges.
Introduction of technology in teaching can also revolutionize teaching methods. Technology definitely makes the teaching-learning process easier. For instance, students can take online classes or get help from their professors through computer immediately instead of waiting to get appointments. Many small problems could be quickly addressed in this manner. Also, the use of audio/video samples can elucidate concepts for courses that require close listening or viewing.
Thus, restructuring the education system is mandatory to enhance and facilitate the teaching and learning process. The new education system should aim to be a liberal education in true sense, respecting the interests of students and still be job-oriented while making maximum use of available technologies and resources.
Many of the American colleges and universities provide a liberal education. In liberal education, the ideal is for students to develop their critical and rational thinking skills in science, arts, literature, math, psychology and philosophy by studying a general curriculum while at the same time concentrating on a specific subject; their major. Instead of studying the same general education courses, students should be allowed to navigate through the curriculum on their own and select the courses that best fit their interests.
The establishment of new industries and the development of new technologies have changed the job requirements for workers and the types of work available. Students who enter college or universities with the dream of getting good jobs after graduation get frustrated when they discover themselves unfit for the new jobs. To cope with this problem, students should be trained on the latest technologies developed in their field of study and should at least be educated about them. The best way is to include internships in such industries as a major part of the curriculum.
Another major problem is the tenure system. When professors get tenured (hold positions in their departments for long time) many develop a kind of autonomy. These professors do not want to update themselves and do not want to retire from their jobs, creating scarcity of teaching jobs for new graduates. So, the tenure system should be replaced by eight-year contracts which may be renewed or terminated depending on the performance of the professors. If professors update themselves with the latest technologies and developments, they should be promoted. At the same time, there should be a retirement system for professors who refuse to update their skills so that those who do work hard are rewarded.
The baccalaureate colleges, which are known for their traditional teaching methods, should adopt new policies so that they can develop students who are more capable of performing jobs. They could do so by reducing the number of undergraduate years to three and then coupling that to a two-year master’s degree. In the undergraduate years, they could teach the core subjects and help students gain the basic skills and concepts necessary for coping with the real-life issues. Later, they could promote more practical approaches and offer internships during students’ graduate years. This exposure to new approaches and internships along with exposure to real-life issues will better prepare students for jobs at businesses and nonprofit organizations.
There should be collaboration among education institutions to ensure that the students get better learning options. As described by Mr. Mark C. Taylor in his article ‘End the university as we know it’, it is possible to have a system of teleconferencing between two or more colleges where each college can help the other in whatever department it is good at. For example, if a college is good at molecular biology and another good at modern physics, faculty from the first college can teach molecular biology to the students of the second college while faculty from the second college can teach modern physics to the students of the first college. That way, the students will benefit and the cost of running courses will also be lowered for both of the colleges.
Introduction of technology in teaching can also revolutionize teaching methods. Technology definitely makes the teaching-learning process easier. For instance, students can take online classes or get help from their professors through computer immediately instead of waiting to get appointments. Many small problems could be quickly addressed in this manner. Also, the use of audio/video samples can elucidate concepts for courses that require close listening or viewing.
Thus, restructuring the education system is mandatory to enhance and facilitate the teaching and learning process. The new education system should aim to be a liberal education in true sense, respecting the interests of students and still be job-oriented while making maximum use of available technologies and resources.
Liu, Simin. (2009). Views on Reform in Higher Education
Why do students attend colleges? For diplomas. Why diplomas? This is because to most students gaining a diploma through a college education is nearly the only way to prove their ability. Few can find other ways to prove themselves in ways sanctioned by society. However, on who did was Bill Gates who successfully proved himself by starting his own company. Without the Harvard diploma (which was finally granted by Harvard 32 years after he dropped out), Bill Gates brought about the rapid growth of a new industry, enriched computer science, and changed the world through philanthropy. Therefore, college education is not the only determinant of future development. It is instead an avenue to experience new views, both in academics and in life. As Gates said in his speech at the Harvard graduation ceremony, “I was transformed by my years at Harvard, the friendships I made, and the ideas I worked on.” To me, these are the best things a college education can offer; knowledge is just a small portion of college education. It is the values we form, the direction we find, the inspiration we draw, and personality we shape that matter.
Oddly, undergraduate majors add little to education. Students should not expect much from their undergraduate majors, because they are often far from their future careers. Instead, students should keep learning, either by themselves, through work, or by going to a graduate school. That’s my concept of college education.
I like the present American college educational system. General studies in the first two years provides students basic knowledge in the main aspects of education, which benefits their entire career, and helps form comprehensive views about problems. The American system is very different from the Chinese educational system, where students are divided into two groups, arts and science students, from the 11th grade on. Arts students won’t study physics, biology and chemistry in the 12th grade and science students won’t study history and geography. Although the contents of Chinese courses are much more difficult and focus on either arts or science, specialization lessens students’ academic burden. However, it is sad to give up studying either aspect. Second, I like the freer educational atmosphere in the U.S. It allows for interdisciplinary study, double majors, or combinations of majors and minors which are hardly available in China. In the U.S., I can choose majors freely according to my interests and strengths, and build up my knowledge system as I wish. Third, courses here encourage critical thinking which improves students’ abilities in analysis, evaluation, and persuasion which are less emphasized in China. Although critical thinking is independent of any major, it forms the basis of the type of thinking which is crucial to problem solving. Therefore, there is no need to change in the US college education; if anything, the depth of instruction should be improved.
As far as I am concerned, most people calling for reform in higher education are simply parroting the educator’s point of view and not the students’. Some, however, are advocates for developing majors depending on actual needs. But, as new problems keep emerging, the speed of creating majors can never keep up with that of the problems emerging, which leads to a lag that goes against the nature of this change—to solve problems in time. Also, based on the fact that many seemingly different problems overlap in their nature, if a water issue can be established as a major (according to Mark C. Taylor’s article), there will be numerous majors that study basically the same thing but different segments. The addition of subjects but reduction of depth in study will lead to students studying everything but actually studying nothing.
To sum up, the current education system is good enough to both educate students and cultivate their abilities and interest. Most importantly, based on the current financial status, it’s not the right time and there is no need to make any kind of reform in college education. Furthermore, forms of education are not important; it’s actually the experience of attending a college that carries through in our entire life.
Oddly, undergraduate majors add little to education. Students should not expect much from their undergraduate majors, because they are often far from their future careers. Instead, students should keep learning, either by themselves, through work, or by going to a graduate school. That’s my concept of college education.
I like the present American college educational system. General studies in the first two years provides students basic knowledge in the main aspects of education, which benefits their entire career, and helps form comprehensive views about problems. The American system is very different from the Chinese educational system, where students are divided into two groups, arts and science students, from the 11th grade on. Arts students won’t study physics, biology and chemistry in the 12th grade and science students won’t study history and geography. Although the contents of Chinese courses are much more difficult and focus on either arts or science, specialization lessens students’ academic burden. However, it is sad to give up studying either aspect. Second, I like the freer educational atmosphere in the U.S. It allows for interdisciplinary study, double majors, or combinations of majors and minors which are hardly available in China. In the U.S., I can choose majors freely according to my interests and strengths, and build up my knowledge system as I wish. Third, courses here encourage critical thinking which improves students’ abilities in analysis, evaluation, and persuasion which are less emphasized in China. Although critical thinking is independent of any major, it forms the basis of the type of thinking which is crucial to problem solving. Therefore, there is no need to change in the US college education; if anything, the depth of instruction should be improved.
As far as I am concerned, most people calling for reform in higher education are simply parroting the educator’s point of view and not the students’. Some, however, are advocates for developing majors depending on actual needs. But, as new problems keep emerging, the speed of creating majors can never keep up with that of the problems emerging, which leads to a lag that goes against the nature of this change—to solve problems in time. Also, based on the fact that many seemingly different problems overlap in their nature, if a water issue can be established as a major (according to Mark C. Taylor’s article), there will be numerous majors that study basically the same thing but different segments. The addition of subjects but reduction of depth in study will lead to students studying everything but actually studying nothing.
To sum up, the current education system is good enough to both educate students and cultivate their abilities and interest. Most importantly, based on the current financial status, it’s not the right time and there is no need to make any kind of reform in college education. Furthermore, forms of education are not important; it’s actually the experience of attending a college that carries through in our entire life.
Faulkner, Ashley. (2009). Traditional Universities Transcending
What is a traditional university? Merriam-Webster defines traditional as an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (such as a religious practice or a social custom). It defines a university as an institution of higher learning providing facilities for teaching and research and authorized to grant academic degrees. These definitions sound good, but, is a traditional university really viable in today’s world? Technological changes coupled with teachers’ demands for higher salaries may put the traditional university in trouble and may make a serious facelift necessary. Mark C. Taylor’s piece “End the University as We Know It” introduces two innovative ways to revamp the traditional university.
First he suggests dividing teaching into subdivisions. This is not a new idea but it can be applied it a new way, Further division of subjects could benefit universities in enormous ways. Imagine having a professor for each subdivision of a main subject. Each would be a specialist in that area, allowing students to look deeply at the subject. Far example an Introduction to Biology class, six different teachers might each teach a different part of the course. One might teach osmosis and diffusion, another mitosis and meiosis, yet another genetics, and so on. Students would attend each teachers’ class for a little over a week or two then switch to the next teacher over the course of the semester. Teachers would also benefit only teaching in their specialization. Not only would this idea give students an advantage in learning, it would also increase the demand for teachers. Universities around the world are in desperate need of professors. This approach would help to decrease demand by employing specialists to teach the subjects. University research would also benefit, each university participating would have specialists for a certain area at their disposal, which could lead to more grants. All and all everyone would benefit: the students, teachers, and the research teams.
Second, Taylor reminds us that in today’s economy funds are short and universities are no exception. He mentions an innovative way to expand the courses available to universities for half the price. How is this possible? Its answer is simple. Just utilize the technology around you. To simplify, Taylor proposed that we use teleconferences and the Internet to teach the same class, at the same time, using the same professor to teach in two places for the price of one. Technology has already revolutionized the university with online classes which would make his idea an easy one to pursue. In fact, he himself has already done that. Taylor conducted team-taught semester-long seminars in real time between the Universities of Helsinki and Melbourne. This strategy would not only decrease the money spent on paying teachers but would also increase the variety of subjects available to students. The only downside toTaylor’s idea is that it decreases the number of teachers needed.
I believe both are great ideas. Each attempts to solve a major problem in universities today. So is there any way to utilize both? Why not use both ideas, just with different subjects. The major subjects like Math, Science, English, and History should be broken down into subdivisions to promote better teaching of the subject. This strategy would increase the need for teachers. But how to pay for it? Herein lies the second idea. Electives like foreign languages and public speaking don’t require subdivisions and could be taught through Taylor’s idea of collaboration among institutions. The universities participating would divide the subjects and decide which school would hire teachers for particular subjects and then set up the times for the classes and the teleconferences. All students at all of the participating universities could enroll in these classes. This plan would employ more professors while keeping the expenses for them relatively the same as before. This idea would increase the classes available while improving the teaching of main subjects. Some classes, such as theatre would remain unchanged. Theatre can neither be divided into subdivisions nor be taught through teleconferences. This compromise will help to transcend the traditional university into the 21st century as well as help to solve both the problems of lack of funds and the demand for teachers.
So what is a traditional university? It is one that keeps the same teaching methods while passing them on in a customary pattern to their students in an institution authorized to grant academic degrees or, is it? In today’s society it’s time to revamp the traditional university and the compromise between both of Mark C. Taylor’s ideas will do just that. They will revolutionalize the way subjects are taught by introducing subdivisions each taught by a different specialized professor. They will also bring more technology into the classroom by means of teleconferences, which is on the forefront of the working world. These ideas will transform the traditional university into a transcendental university
First he suggests dividing teaching into subdivisions. This is not a new idea but it can be applied it a new way, Further division of subjects could benefit universities in enormous ways. Imagine having a professor for each subdivision of a main subject. Each would be a specialist in that area, allowing students to look deeply at the subject. Far example an Introduction to Biology class, six different teachers might each teach a different part of the course. One might teach osmosis and diffusion, another mitosis and meiosis, yet another genetics, and so on. Students would attend each teachers’ class for a little over a week or two then switch to the next teacher over the course of the semester. Teachers would also benefit only teaching in their specialization. Not only would this idea give students an advantage in learning, it would also increase the demand for teachers. Universities around the world are in desperate need of professors. This approach would help to decrease demand by employing specialists to teach the subjects. University research would also benefit, each university participating would have specialists for a certain area at their disposal, which could lead to more grants. All and all everyone would benefit: the students, teachers, and the research teams.
Second, Taylor reminds us that in today’s economy funds are short and universities are no exception. He mentions an innovative way to expand the courses available to universities for half the price. How is this possible? Its answer is simple. Just utilize the technology around you. To simplify, Taylor proposed that we use teleconferences and the Internet to teach the same class, at the same time, using the same professor to teach in two places for the price of one. Technology has already revolutionized the university with online classes which would make his idea an easy one to pursue. In fact, he himself has already done that. Taylor conducted team-taught semester-long seminars in real time between the Universities of Helsinki and Melbourne. This strategy would not only decrease the money spent on paying teachers but would also increase the variety of subjects available to students. The only downside toTaylor’s idea is that it decreases the number of teachers needed.
I believe both are great ideas. Each attempts to solve a major problem in universities today. So is there any way to utilize both? Why not use both ideas, just with different subjects. The major subjects like Math, Science, English, and History should be broken down into subdivisions to promote better teaching of the subject. This strategy would increase the need for teachers. But how to pay for it? Herein lies the second idea. Electives like foreign languages and public speaking don’t require subdivisions and could be taught through Taylor’s idea of collaboration among institutions. The universities participating would divide the subjects and decide which school would hire teachers for particular subjects and then set up the times for the classes and the teleconferences. All students at all of the participating universities could enroll in these classes. This plan would employ more professors while keeping the expenses for them relatively the same as before. This idea would increase the classes available while improving the teaching of main subjects. Some classes, such as theatre would remain unchanged. Theatre can neither be divided into subdivisions nor be taught through teleconferences. This compromise will help to transcend the traditional university into the 21st century as well as help to solve both the problems of lack of funds and the demand for teachers.
So what is a traditional university? It is one that keeps the same teaching methods while passing them on in a customary pattern to their students in an institution authorized to grant academic degrees or, is it? In today’s society it’s time to revamp the traditional university and the compromise between both of Mark C. Taylor’s ideas will do just that. They will revolutionalize the way subjects are taught by introducing subdivisions each taught by a different specialized professor. They will also bring more technology into the classroom by means of teleconferences, which is on the forefront of the working world. These ideas will transform the traditional university into a transcendental university
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Cannon, Amanda. (2009) Tenure
In the modern education system, one of the main goals of professors is to gain tenure in their jobs. Having tenure means that one cannot be replaced except for in the case of proven illegal activity. Rather than having a contract that is renewed each year, professors with tenure are able to stay at their jobs as long as they desire. Tenure provides academic freedom in that it allows professors to teach what they wish without the worry of getting fired because of offending someone. After several years of successful work, it is possible to become tenured. Although this seems like a respectful and honorable thing to do for dedicated workers, tenure definitely has a downside.
Tenured positions prevent new employees from getting a job at a college. It is certainly true that age and experience go hand in hand and result in a well educated, wise professor. However, with age comes an older way of doing things. Whereas new teachers come in with fresh ideas and methods, teachers who have been at their jobs for extended periods may continue in set ways and patterns. Tried and true is not necessarily a bad thing, but often it is helpful to at least consider a different approach. Also, in a world that is being filled with more gadgets daily, older professors may not be equipped with the knowledge of how to fully use technology to their advantage. Students sometimes learn better with the use of technological devices, and younger professors are usually more open to deviating from the standard educational path.
In addition, just because teachers have been able to do their jobs decently doesn’t mean they are the best person for the position. Perhaps someone else would have a more effective teaching style. On another note, professors may start out wonderfully for the first few years, then become jaded by the constancy of work, or just begin to lose the love they once had for the career. Of course, this doesn’t mean that they will quit. They’re set for life with this job; they’re able to stay as long as they wish without the threat of being replaced. Why would they choose to leave and start from scratch? Here, tenure leads to basically handing money to employees who have no passion left and are therefore unable to work as well as someone who is ready and willing to make a difference in the lives of college students. Times have changed and students want to be entertained, not lectured to every day. Perhaps college was not intended for entertainment purposes, but society has taught students they need to be entertained. If professors don’t respect that need, students become bored, which leads to the mind wandering, which ultimately leads to not learning anything at all. There’s no use in having been in a position for years if the students are not being taught.
There are alternatives to tenure that still give benefits to employees. One option is a long-term contract, such as 10 years, that is renewable after evaluation. Unless teachers are doing horribly, they will most likely be rehired because it’s easier than finding someone new. Contract systems provide also academic freedom, which abolishes the need for tenure altogether. Another choice is to give more options to new employees, such as the opportunity for frequent sabbaticals—time off work while still being paid. People are less likely to take tenure track positions when the nontenure track is equally rewarding.
All in all, tenure, although beneficial to those receiving it, brings little or no benefit to anyone else. It lowers the chance of new teachers finding jobs and potentially decreases the amount that a student learns in class. Before a professor is granted tenure, administrators should ask themselves the question, “Is it worth it?” Is it really that important to promise not to fire someone? Does anyone really deserve to keep their job, no matter what? Tenure merely serves as a reason for professors to slack off and not teach as well as they are capable of teaching. Once tenure is given, there is no incentive for professors to work hard. They may still do their jobs, but they no longer fear termination, so they can get away with doing less and less. There are several alternatives to tenure that should be explored, because in order for the education system to reach its maximum potential, and for students to learn as much as possible, tenure must be removed from colleges.
Tenured positions prevent new employees from getting a job at a college. It is certainly true that age and experience go hand in hand and result in a well educated, wise professor. However, with age comes an older way of doing things. Whereas new teachers come in with fresh ideas and methods, teachers who have been at their jobs for extended periods may continue in set ways and patterns. Tried and true is not necessarily a bad thing, but often it is helpful to at least consider a different approach. Also, in a world that is being filled with more gadgets daily, older professors may not be equipped with the knowledge of how to fully use technology to their advantage. Students sometimes learn better with the use of technological devices, and younger professors are usually more open to deviating from the standard educational path.
In addition, just because teachers have been able to do their jobs decently doesn’t mean they are the best person for the position. Perhaps someone else would have a more effective teaching style. On another note, professors may start out wonderfully for the first few years, then become jaded by the constancy of work, or just begin to lose the love they once had for the career. Of course, this doesn’t mean that they will quit. They’re set for life with this job; they’re able to stay as long as they wish without the threat of being replaced. Why would they choose to leave and start from scratch? Here, tenure leads to basically handing money to employees who have no passion left and are therefore unable to work as well as someone who is ready and willing to make a difference in the lives of college students. Times have changed and students want to be entertained, not lectured to every day. Perhaps college was not intended for entertainment purposes, but society has taught students they need to be entertained. If professors don’t respect that need, students become bored, which leads to the mind wandering, which ultimately leads to not learning anything at all. There’s no use in having been in a position for years if the students are not being taught.
There are alternatives to tenure that still give benefits to employees. One option is a long-term contract, such as 10 years, that is renewable after evaluation. Unless teachers are doing horribly, they will most likely be rehired because it’s easier than finding someone new. Contract systems provide also academic freedom, which abolishes the need for tenure altogether. Another choice is to give more options to new employees, such as the opportunity for frequent sabbaticals—time off work while still being paid. People are less likely to take tenure track positions when the nontenure track is equally rewarding.
All in all, tenure, although beneficial to those receiving it, brings little or no benefit to anyone else. It lowers the chance of new teachers finding jobs and potentially decreases the amount that a student learns in class. Before a professor is granted tenure, administrators should ask themselves the question, “Is it worth it?” Is it really that important to promise not to fire someone? Does anyone really deserve to keep their job, no matter what? Tenure merely serves as a reason for professors to slack off and not teach as well as they are capable of teaching. Once tenure is given, there is no incentive for professors to work hard. They may still do their jobs, but they no longer fear termination, so they can get away with doing less and less. There are several alternatives to tenure that should be explored, because in order for the education system to reach its maximum potential, and for students to learn as much as possible, tenure must be removed from colleges.
Thomas, Kendall. (2009). Tenure
One of the major problems in higher education is the tenure system. The idea of tenure started in the late 19th century as a way of protecting teachers from having their lesson plans dictated by parents and administrators. However, there are many problems with the way the tenure system works for professors today. Intended at first to give teachers the academic freedom to teach as they see fit, it has evolved into simply becoming a means to job security for some professors. Although not all faculty take advantage of the tenure system, some professors take it to mean that they no longer have to continue the scholarly activities that earned them tenure in the first place. Thus, they fail to grow to their full potential. According to an article by Steven D. Levitt entitled “Let’s Just Get Rid of Tenure (including mine)”, all tenure does for professors is to “distort people’s efforts so that they face strong incentives early in their career and very weak incentives for the rest of their career.” In addition, the tenured professors on tenure-decision committees hold inordinate power over the professors who are on the tenure-track and not get tenured themselves. The tenured professors can vote against making someone a tenured professor if they have a grudge, or even if they happen to be in a bad mood that day. Often, this can cost professors their chance for tenure because, as shown in “Time’s Up For Tenure”, a blog posted on The Chronicle of Higher Education’s website says, the next levels of people in the system who get to make the ultimate decisions might decide against granting tenure because it might cause a riff in the department because the vote wasn’t unanimous.
Tenure makes firing professors a long and drawn out process, and it is very costly. In many places, tenured professors cannot be fired until months of evaluations, hearings and appeals have been conducted. This long process was intended to dissuade administrations or parents from trying to fire tenured teachers, but the system has seemed to backfire for many universities who cannot easily fire the inept professors who abuse the system. For example, M.J. Stephey describes in his article “A Brief History of Tenure,” a case of how a Connecticut professor helped her students cheat on a standardized test, but only received a 30-day suspension as a result. Thus, many colleges find it is just easier to wait for tenured but irresponsible professors to retire so as to save money and time, both of which could be used more to the student’s benefit.
The tenure system also creates additional and unexpected problems. Some colleges deliberately hire more tenure-track professors than they need, causing them to be in competition with one another. Another problem is that college graduates who dream of becoming professors are falsely led into believing that they will be able to accomplish the unattainable goal of becoming a full-time professor; the large numbers of tenured professors stand in their way. A third problem that the tenure system creates is that tenure is not a possibility for some college instructors, because universities need some expendable workers to lay off when enrollment drops.
One of the alternate ways that could be created to entice professors to continue to grow and develop professionally, completely doing away with tenure while still offering academic freedom and security, is stated by Mark C. Taylor in an article for the New York Times. It is titled “End of the University as We Know it”, where he describes replacing tenure with seven-year contracts, that can either be terminated or renewed. This method would allow colleges and universities to reward researchers, scholars and teachers who continue to remain productive, while also making room for young people with new ideas and skills. Other ways that have been used to lessen the amount of people with tenure have been bribing them with larger salaries if they give up tenure.
Although tenure was meant to benefit the teachers and ultimately to benefit their students, it has evolved to the point that it offers more disadvantages than benefits for students and graduates alike. Maybe it’s time for a change.
Tenure makes firing professors a long and drawn out process, and it is very costly. In many places, tenured professors cannot be fired until months of evaluations, hearings and appeals have been conducted. This long process was intended to dissuade administrations or parents from trying to fire tenured teachers, but the system has seemed to backfire for many universities who cannot easily fire the inept professors who abuse the system. For example, M.J. Stephey describes in his article “A Brief History of Tenure,” a case of how a Connecticut professor helped her students cheat on a standardized test, but only received a 30-day suspension as a result. Thus, many colleges find it is just easier to wait for tenured but irresponsible professors to retire so as to save money and time, both of which could be used more to the student’s benefit.
The tenure system also creates additional and unexpected problems. Some colleges deliberately hire more tenure-track professors than they need, causing them to be in competition with one another. Another problem is that college graduates who dream of becoming professors are falsely led into believing that they will be able to accomplish the unattainable goal of becoming a full-time professor; the large numbers of tenured professors stand in their way. A third problem that the tenure system creates is that tenure is not a possibility for some college instructors, because universities need some expendable workers to lay off when enrollment drops.
One of the alternate ways that could be created to entice professors to continue to grow and develop professionally, completely doing away with tenure while still offering academic freedom and security, is stated by Mark C. Taylor in an article for the New York Times. It is titled “End of the University as We Know it”, where he describes replacing tenure with seven-year contracts, that can either be terminated or renewed. This method would allow colleges and universities to reward researchers, scholars and teachers who continue to remain productive, while also making room for young people with new ideas and skills. Other ways that have been used to lessen the amount of people with tenure have been bribing them with larger salaries if they give up tenure.
Although tenure was meant to benefit the teachers and ultimately to benefit their students, it has evolved to the point that it offers more disadvantages than benefits for students and graduates alike. Maybe it’s time for a change.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Lee, John. (2009) The End of the Curriculum
In April 26, 2009, Dr. Mark C. Taylor, a professor of religion at Columbia University, in his recent essay “End of the University as We Know it[1],”claimed that the current curriculum has to be changed into a web or complex adaptive network, and universities have to abolish permanent departments. His arguments are that universities should restructure the curriculum by gathering people together working on the common questions of various fields and by creating problem-focused programs. In addition, he proposed that the universities should gain more efficiency and be more flexible about majors by abolishing permanent departments.
Dr. Taylor assumed that the curriculum should be different for students according to their majors. However his claims that to change majors (curriculums) into web or complex adaptive network is actually mixing all majors into one. In his ideal system, communication between majors is vital - the trouble is that communication between majors is difficult. Each major uses different language and knowledge. For example if chemists want to talk and solve a problem with artists, both of them will require knowledge of science and art. Their communication would be difficult because of lack of knowledge about each other’s field. So, Dr. Taylor’s system requires that students understand various academic areas. However, students will not be as interested in subjects they do not like. That will only reduce the efficiency of their studying. It is difficult for present students to deeply learn about their major; it will be much difficult for future students to learn from many majors. Because most of real-world problems are only solvable by specialists in certain field, shallow concepts and knowledge are useless to handle those problems. As Dr. Taylor claims, it is good for people to gather and focus on a problem. Nevertheless students and faculty can do the problem-focused problem currently. Instead, we need to encourage communications between departments and majors but the reconstruction of the curriculums.
Dr. Taylor also argued that universities should abolish permanent departments and transform the system by “renewal or abolishment” after evaluating departments. But I do not agree with his idea, because departments are very necessary for students, faculty, and schools to maintain what the universities are. The division of the university into colleges and department is traditional. I believe that permanent departments are indispensable because they help students choose areas in which they are interested in and which they are good at. Besides, companies will easily decide the job applicants’ qualification for a certain position by evaluating their transcripts. If, according to Dr. Taylor, there would be no majors but only one wide curriculum offered by universities, then companies would be hard pressed to find suitable applicants. For example, suppose a pharmacy company wants to mostly employ chemists and construction company wants people who major in architecture, therefore, students should learn specifically certain parts of knowledge, rather than unnecessary things. Dr. Taylor used a water program as an example; he deemed it far more effective to bring together people working on questions of religion, politics, history, economics, anthropology, sociology, literature, art, and philosophy to engage in comparative analysis of common problems. In addition, Dr. Taylor explained that “schools of medicine, law, business, engineering, social work, theology, and architecture” will chase one goal and find it. However, scientists and engineers will be ones who really solve this water problem. Artists can draw, paint, or express some of the aesthetic factors. However, there is no certainty that artists will want to work on their pieces in the program. I do not know what schools of medicine, law, business, social work, theology, and architecture will contribute to this problem either. Dr. Taylor did not specify what they would do. Hence, the permanent department system must stay as it is now, because to handle and solve the problem, people would not need many specialists but the few experts who will really do the work.
Dr. Taylor suggested that every department should be evaluated every seven years and either abolished, continued or significantly changed. He did not explain why administrations should evaluate departments every seven years. In this case, department is just like company’s departments so that they would do anything to survive every seven years. I am confident that evaluating departments will bring a side effect, and eventually evaluation would be meaningless, because administrations would evaluate departments every year.
In conclusion, Dr. Taylor claimed that universities should reconstruct the curriculum and abolish the permanent departments. But I am sure that we do not have to reconstruct the curriculum. Instead, we need more communication between majors and permanent departments should be kept. Reshaping the curriculum would lead only to confusion between majors. Plus, the permanent department system is running well with evaluating every year.
Dr. Taylor assumed that the curriculum should be different for students according to their majors. However his claims that to change majors (curriculums) into web or complex adaptive network is actually mixing all majors into one. In his ideal system, communication between majors is vital - the trouble is that communication between majors is difficult. Each major uses different language and knowledge. For example if chemists want to talk and solve a problem with artists, both of them will require knowledge of science and art. Their communication would be difficult because of lack of knowledge about each other’s field. So, Dr. Taylor’s system requires that students understand various academic areas. However, students will not be as interested in subjects they do not like. That will only reduce the efficiency of their studying. It is difficult for present students to deeply learn about their major; it will be much difficult for future students to learn from many majors. Because most of real-world problems are only solvable by specialists in certain field, shallow concepts and knowledge are useless to handle those problems. As Dr. Taylor claims, it is good for people to gather and focus on a problem. Nevertheless students and faculty can do the problem-focused problem currently. Instead, we need to encourage communications between departments and majors but the reconstruction of the curriculums.
Dr. Taylor also argued that universities should abolish permanent departments and transform the system by “renewal or abolishment” after evaluating departments. But I do not agree with his idea, because departments are very necessary for students, faculty, and schools to maintain what the universities are. The division of the university into colleges and department is traditional. I believe that permanent departments are indispensable because they help students choose areas in which they are interested in and which they are good at. Besides, companies will easily decide the job applicants’ qualification for a certain position by evaluating their transcripts. If, according to Dr. Taylor, there would be no majors but only one wide curriculum offered by universities, then companies would be hard pressed to find suitable applicants. For example, suppose a pharmacy company wants to mostly employ chemists and construction company wants people who major in architecture, therefore, students should learn specifically certain parts of knowledge, rather than unnecessary things. Dr. Taylor used a water program as an example; he deemed it far more effective to bring together people working on questions of religion, politics, history, economics, anthropology, sociology, literature, art, and philosophy to engage in comparative analysis of common problems. In addition, Dr. Taylor explained that “schools of medicine, law, business, engineering, social work, theology, and architecture” will chase one goal and find it. However, scientists and engineers will be ones who really solve this water problem. Artists can draw, paint, or express some of the aesthetic factors. However, there is no certainty that artists will want to work on their pieces in the program. I do not know what schools of medicine, law, business, social work, theology, and architecture will contribute to this problem either. Dr. Taylor did not specify what they would do. Hence, the permanent department system must stay as it is now, because to handle and solve the problem, people would not need many specialists but the few experts who will really do the work.
Dr. Taylor suggested that every department should be evaluated every seven years and either abolished, continued or significantly changed. He did not explain why administrations should evaluate departments every seven years. In this case, department is just like company’s departments so that they would do anything to survive every seven years. I am confident that evaluating departments will bring a side effect, and eventually evaluation would be meaningless, because administrations would evaluate departments every year.
In conclusion, Dr. Taylor claimed that universities should reconstruct the curriculum and abolish the permanent departments. But I am sure that we do not have to reconstruct the curriculum. Instead, we need more communication between majors and permanent departments should be kept. Reshaping the curriculum would lead only to confusion between majors. Plus, the permanent department system is running well with evaluating every year.
Novotny, Alex. (2009). Colleges with Canon
One Halloween Alex Novotny decided to be a vacuum cleaner salesman. In fact, every time he and his mom would go into Walmart, he instructed her to walk with him down the vacuum cleaner aisle. Something about their power and construction fascinated him. Today his major has changed quite drastically to theatre with a plan of going to law school after. But, why does he want to go to law school? Why is he majoring in theatre before? Why did he change his mind from being a vacuum cleaner salesman? The goal of higher learning institutions still says that academics remain the top priority. However, today’s undergraduate colleges are no longer enough, have become a business, and produce cloned beings. The canon must change.
Thirty years ago going to college sat planted in many high school seniors’ daydreams while they were waiting to walk across the stage dressed in their graduation robes. Almost anyone can go to college today. Last year, Oklahoma State University lowered their ACT acceptance score from 21 to 19. While these students will be on probation, they are still official students. Almost 20 million young adults study at various degree granting institutions all over the country. Compare that to the 12 million attending in 1980. With this increase in enrollment, a bachelor’s degree now means what a high school diploma used to. Norms now require pupils to go into some sort of graduate program. High school graduates dreaming of a four-year degree couldn’t have even imagined they could go on to graduate school. Now, they almost can’t live without it; it’s almost a law.
When schools began, students were actually paid to attend. As time passed, teachers were paid instead of students, and students ended up paying to receive an education. College tuition increases every year, while where that money is spent is rarely revealed. Yet, everyone who wants to go to college does. So, why not charge more for the highly sought piece of paper stating one’s educated? The FAFSA creates an opportunity to help poor families receive an education as well as the more affluent. Basically, if a family makes less than $20,000 a year, their kids can get a higher education for free. Instead of the consumer paying for the product, the government pays for the individual’s education, meaning the fortunate’s taxes pay for the not-so-fortunate. Colleges are businesses seeking the one thing all businesses desire: profit. No matter if their students receive governmental aid or pay with mattress packed cash, the university still gets paid at the end of the day. Instead of the original idea of students getting paid, colleges have turned into money making machines.
This past summer the Oklahoma Senate passed a bill that stated human cloning was illegal in Oklahoma. While actual human clones do not exist, psychological ones do. Two places in the United States print money. Their customers are the reserve banks, twelve across the nation. Every year, these twelve banks come up with a number that tells the money printers how much to print. Each year the Fort Worth Treasury prints billions of dollars, and every year they reach their quota. Colleges also have a quota to fill. Every year various people retire or change careers, and then, new jobs open, requiring fresh faces. Most of these jobs, though, necessitate a college degree. That’s where the idea of psychological cloning comes from. Each May, the freshly produced psychological clones are ready to enter the world fulfilling the quota the colleges were given. Every engineer, architect, graphic designer, fashion merchandiser or theatre major walks with a cloned twitch in their step. Their actions, thoughts, and ideas rarely differ from those of previous graduates. They jump onto the cycle of life, and keep pedaling till it’s their turn to vacate for retirement. If only the Oklahoma Senate knew how hard it would be to stop cloning, maybe they would notice the problem with current canon and morph it into something more useful.
The current standards of universities around the United States seem to have dropped into an abyss of mystery. A four-year degree, no longer enough, makes students challenge themselves to longer intensive study. Money seems to be the only thing on college’s minds, and their use of cloning keeps the money rolling in. Alex wants to go to law school, so he can be successful in a world that demands it. Alex is majoring in theatre, because he wants some part of his education to be in something he loves. Alex changed his mind to make more money, so he wants to go to law school. Money equals victory. Making money has been conditioned to be an essential to live the life. Colleges using the current canon destroy little dreams, dreams like Alex being a vacuum cleaner salesman.
Thirty years ago going to college sat planted in many high school seniors’ daydreams while they were waiting to walk across the stage dressed in their graduation robes. Almost anyone can go to college today. Last year, Oklahoma State University lowered their ACT acceptance score from 21 to 19. While these students will be on probation, they are still official students. Almost 20 million young adults study at various degree granting institutions all over the country. Compare that to the 12 million attending in 1980. With this increase in enrollment, a bachelor’s degree now means what a high school diploma used to. Norms now require pupils to go into some sort of graduate program. High school graduates dreaming of a four-year degree couldn’t have even imagined they could go on to graduate school. Now, they almost can’t live without it; it’s almost a law.
When schools began, students were actually paid to attend. As time passed, teachers were paid instead of students, and students ended up paying to receive an education. College tuition increases every year, while where that money is spent is rarely revealed. Yet, everyone who wants to go to college does. So, why not charge more for the highly sought piece of paper stating one’s educated? The FAFSA creates an opportunity to help poor families receive an education as well as the more affluent. Basically, if a family makes less than $20,000 a year, their kids can get a higher education for free. Instead of the consumer paying for the product, the government pays for the individual’s education, meaning the fortunate’s taxes pay for the not-so-fortunate. Colleges are businesses seeking the one thing all businesses desire: profit. No matter if their students receive governmental aid or pay with mattress packed cash, the university still gets paid at the end of the day. Instead of the original idea of students getting paid, colleges have turned into money making machines.
This past summer the Oklahoma Senate passed a bill that stated human cloning was illegal in Oklahoma. While actual human clones do not exist, psychological ones do. Two places in the United States print money. Their customers are the reserve banks, twelve across the nation. Every year, these twelve banks come up with a number that tells the money printers how much to print. Each year the Fort Worth Treasury prints billions of dollars, and every year they reach their quota. Colleges also have a quota to fill. Every year various people retire or change careers, and then, new jobs open, requiring fresh faces. Most of these jobs, though, necessitate a college degree. That’s where the idea of psychological cloning comes from. Each May, the freshly produced psychological clones are ready to enter the world fulfilling the quota the colleges were given. Every engineer, architect, graphic designer, fashion merchandiser or theatre major walks with a cloned twitch in their step. Their actions, thoughts, and ideas rarely differ from those of previous graduates. They jump onto the cycle of life, and keep pedaling till it’s their turn to vacate for retirement. If only the Oklahoma Senate knew how hard it would be to stop cloning, maybe they would notice the problem with current canon and morph it into something more useful.
The current standards of universities around the United States seem to have dropped into an abyss of mystery. A four-year degree, no longer enough, makes students challenge themselves to longer intensive study. Money seems to be the only thing on college’s minds, and their use of cloning keeps the money rolling in. Alex wants to go to law school, so he can be successful in a world that demands it. Alex is majoring in theatre, because he wants some part of his education to be in something he loves. Alex changed his mind to make more money, so he wants to go to law school. Money equals victory. Making money has been conditioned to be an essential to live the life. Colleges using the current canon destroy little dreams, dreams like Alex being a vacuum cleaner salesman.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Schlag, James. (2009). General and Liberal Education
The American author Sherwood Anderson once said, "The whole object of education is...to develop the mind. The mind should be a thing that works.” The purpose of an education is to strengthen minds for the future and to prepare them for any plans they might make in the realm of a career. This educational responsibility lies not only within individuals themselves, but with their schools or universities as well. Students must possess the drive to learn more, while the university must provide the impetus to challenge them and shape their ever-growing minds. Universities cannot expect this impetus to come from general education alone. Universities should seek to challenge their students with a combined general-liberal system.
General education is a form of learning that exposes students to fundamental ideas. With a general education, students are only prepared for basic understanding of the fundamentals in their classes. Naturally, everything must be brought down to basics in order to fully understand and comprehend advanced concepts; long-division cannot be performed without an understanding of basic division, nor an intelligent essay composed without a general understanding of its form. However, only through in-depth discussions and promotion of critical thinking can a greater understanding be attained. What do students know when they work a certain mathematical problem yet never learn how it can be applied outside their studies? Or what about students who are versed in the form of essays but never instructed in regards to their substance? Students can only learn so much from basic instruction. They require additional instruction to learn the priceless skills of analysis, evaluation, and persuasion necessary for advanced situations in their fields of study. Basic information is definitely required for a full understanding, but it is a broad comprehension that enables a student to achieve the most useful form of education.
According to W. Robert Connor in his article “College Makeover: Give Majors an Overhaul”, liberal education is composed of “crafts, skills, cognitive capacities…[that] have included forms of quantitative reasoning, systematic ways of thinking about truth and values, and the means to express ideas clearly and persuasively.” It is based on the medieval concept of the liberal arts and was greatly promoted during the Enlightenment. Liberal education was meant to take education a step further past general education, teaching students analytical and persuasive skills that are quite practical in most careers. That being said, liberal education allows students to become more involved in their subjects. The skills they would take from a course crucial to their major could also be applied to other classes, helping them to receive an even broader comprehension than is “required” for their future. Students involved in the analytical dissection of poetry can then apply this analysis to their scientific studies, enabling them to work out the reasoning behind a theory. Liberal education can be very influential to a student’s overall educational experiences, yet it cannot provide a total education.
The best approach would be to combine general education with liberal concepts into one: a more comprehensive education in the basics. This approach would require faculty to become more involved in their classes. They would need to poke and prod at their pupils, challenging them in such a way as to help them acquire understanding and leave them with something more valuable than merely basic skills. These broad introductory courses will facilitate student understanding in the more advanced courses that are present both in undergraduate and graduate curricula. In the long-run, a more liberal approach will provide more lasting benefits than ever could be accomplished with general basics. Thought-inducing skills provide students with attributes that will surely allow them to progress to their fullest potential in their not-so-distant futures.
A general education influenced by liberal thinking can only provide even more benefits to university students. Thought-provoking classes that actually examine concepts thoroughly would challenge students in ways that general education could not. Students have only to gain from such classes. Analytical, persuasive, and comprehensive skills can be used throughout an individual’s life, both in future study and future careers. Such skills are everlasting and only serve to benefit the individual in such ways as to expand their mind and make it “work”, as Sherwood Anderson said. Liberal education can only help to nurture the already eager minds that are willing to expand and grow.
General education is a form of learning that exposes students to fundamental ideas. With a general education, students are only prepared for basic understanding of the fundamentals in their classes. Naturally, everything must be brought down to basics in order to fully understand and comprehend advanced concepts; long-division cannot be performed without an understanding of basic division, nor an intelligent essay composed without a general understanding of its form. However, only through in-depth discussions and promotion of critical thinking can a greater understanding be attained. What do students know when they work a certain mathematical problem yet never learn how it can be applied outside their studies? Or what about students who are versed in the form of essays but never instructed in regards to their substance? Students can only learn so much from basic instruction. They require additional instruction to learn the priceless skills of analysis, evaluation, and persuasion necessary for advanced situations in their fields of study. Basic information is definitely required for a full understanding, but it is a broad comprehension that enables a student to achieve the most useful form of education.
According to W. Robert Connor in his article “College Makeover: Give Majors an Overhaul”, liberal education is composed of “crafts, skills, cognitive capacities…[that] have included forms of quantitative reasoning, systematic ways of thinking about truth and values, and the means to express ideas clearly and persuasively.” It is based on the medieval concept of the liberal arts and was greatly promoted during the Enlightenment. Liberal education was meant to take education a step further past general education, teaching students analytical and persuasive skills that are quite practical in most careers. That being said, liberal education allows students to become more involved in their subjects. The skills they would take from a course crucial to their major could also be applied to other classes, helping them to receive an even broader comprehension than is “required” for their future. Students involved in the analytical dissection of poetry can then apply this analysis to their scientific studies, enabling them to work out the reasoning behind a theory. Liberal education can be very influential to a student’s overall educational experiences, yet it cannot provide a total education.
The best approach would be to combine general education with liberal concepts into one: a more comprehensive education in the basics. This approach would require faculty to become more involved in their classes. They would need to poke and prod at their pupils, challenging them in such a way as to help them acquire understanding and leave them with something more valuable than merely basic skills. These broad introductory courses will facilitate student understanding in the more advanced courses that are present both in undergraduate and graduate curricula. In the long-run, a more liberal approach will provide more lasting benefits than ever could be accomplished with general basics. Thought-inducing skills provide students with attributes that will surely allow them to progress to their fullest potential in their not-so-distant futures.
A general education influenced by liberal thinking can only provide even more benefits to university students. Thought-provoking classes that actually examine concepts thoroughly would challenge students in ways that general education could not. Students have only to gain from such classes. Analytical, persuasive, and comprehensive skills can be used throughout an individual’s life, both in future study and future careers. Such skills are everlasting and only serve to benefit the individual in such ways as to expand their mind and make it “work”, as Sherwood Anderson said. Liberal education can only help to nurture the already eager minds that are willing to expand and grow.
Miles, Majesta. (2009). Academic Reformation
Graduation day has come and gone, so, naturally, college is the next step. Most people expect college to be the same everywhere. You take classes that are on the path to your intended major, never straying too far off, and eventually graduate. This picture in most people’s minds is the essence of the “modern college.” While this framework has existed and been followed for over 100 years, a reconstruction may be in order.
The typical American university is modeled as a “mass-production” university. If one were to pursue a bachelor’s degree at such a university, four years in the classroom would be required, regardless of the field of study. This pattern has been the case for almost seventy years, during which time there has scarcely been any change in the available major fields. Some believe that this consistency is a sign of academic strength, while others feel that it is a sign of stagnation. Mark C. Taylor, who is on the side of those considering the issue as stagnant, is a religion professor at Columbia University. Mr. Taylor believes that it is time for a change, specifically from the educational system practiced today to a radically interdisciplinary educational system. Robert M. Zemsky, chairman of the University of Pennsylvania’s Learning Alliance for Higher Education, agrees, in part, with Taylor. Mr. Zemsky has been advocating a new university model. This new model would include a three-year baccalaureate, which, if his vision were realized, may possibly be tied in with a specialized one- or two-year master’s degree. Rather than the established academic restraints, both Taylor and Zemsky would like to see a heightened assortment of courses of study that are built around detailed problems. Making Reform Work: The Case for Transforming American Higher Education, Zemsky’s innovative book, contains his views on the subject matter. Zemsky believes that an undergraduate degree should certify specific skills.
While Zemsky and Taylor do make very valid points, many other intellectuals beg to differ. These scholars argue that the conventional college major is still an important framework. Newton H. Copp is a professor of biology at the Claremont Colleges. Unlike Taylor and Zemsky, Copp says that “college majors have been admirably flexible instruments, bending but not breaking as knowledge has evolved.” The former president of Miami University, in Ohio, James C. Garland, agrees with Mr. Copp. Mr. Garland believes that, due to their internal adaptability, traditional college majors aren’t going anywhere. Garland has professed that a fundamentally interdisciplinary model, such as Mr. Taylor’s, would be an extreme error.
Even though it is highly unlikely that a change will occur any time soon, how would it affect students if it did? While a model like Taylor’s is innovative and sounds well on paper, would it really help? Many students who graduate college cannot find a job, even though they now have a degree in a specific field. Taylor and Zemsky both proposed the idea of new majors that focus around certain problems, such as ‘water’ and ‘mind’. This is a good idea, speculatively, and if the notion were put into practice, there would be an increase of people specialized in certain areas. Graduates possessing those new specialized degrees might easily obtain the new jobs created in their specialties. That sounds good, at first. Later, however, those same people might be at a severe disadvantage. The world only needs so many specialists. Say, at a certain time, the majority of students wanted to major in ‘water’ because there were plenty of jobs available and the pay was excellent. Now, take a single student. This student graduates with his degree in ‘water’, along with thousands of other students, and intends on getting a job that requires a degree in water, but there are only a limited number of jobs available now. What is that new graduate to do? There aren’t many other jobs that call for a degree in ‘water’. The new graduate is not capable of finding any other form of employment because he isn’t certified in any other field but ‘water’. Had the student majored in a more general subject, such as biology, there would have been a wider variety of jobs accessible to him.
One must also consider the long term harm of reformation within the college system. If all people are certified in only one highly specific field, without the knowledge that a broader field would bring, what will happen when the situation arises where someone, or many people, need to collaborate together to form a solution to a detrimental problem? In fact, would not such narrow specializations breed isolation among the general populace? If all people are only capable of discussing things within their own narrow field, how will learning take place? How will new ideas evolve? I personally believe that this type of reformation would breed true stagnation in the academic world. As Copp pointed out, the system that we have now is an ever-changing one; it will grow and expand over time as need be and will mold to suit the needs of those who use it. Is such a drastic change as that implicated by both Zemsky and Taylor really necessary for a change of pace in academics? Could not the original design that has existed for years be tweaked? Is it really even the system? Maybe it is just what we, as students, professors, law makers, and passersby make of it.
The typical American university is modeled as a “mass-production” university. If one were to pursue a bachelor’s degree at such a university, four years in the classroom would be required, regardless of the field of study. This pattern has been the case for almost seventy years, during which time there has scarcely been any change in the available major fields. Some believe that this consistency is a sign of academic strength, while others feel that it is a sign of stagnation. Mark C. Taylor, who is on the side of those considering the issue as stagnant, is a religion professor at Columbia University. Mr. Taylor believes that it is time for a change, specifically from the educational system practiced today to a radically interdisciplinary educational system. Robert M. Zemsky, chairman of the University of Pennsylvania’s Learning Alliance for Higher Education, agrees, in part, with Taylor. Mr. Zemsky has been advocating a new university model. This new model would include a three-year baccalaureate, which, if his vision were realized, may possibly be tied in with a specialized one- or two-year master’s degree. Rather than the established academic restraints, both Taylor and Zemsky would like to see a heightened assortment of courses of study that are built around detailed problems. Making Reform Work: The Case for Transforming American Higher Education, Zemsky’s innovative book, contains his views on the subject matter. Zemsky believes that an undergraduate degree should certify specific skills.
While Zemsky and Taylor do make very valid points, many other intellectuals beg to differ. These scholars argue that the conventional college major is still an important framework. Newton H. Copp is a professor of biology at the Claremont Colleges. Unlike Taylor and Zemsky, Copp says that “college majors have been admirably flexible instruments, bending but not breaking as knowledge has evolved.” The former president of Miami University, in Ohio, James C. Garland, agrees with Mr. Copp. Mr. Garland believes that, due to their internal adaptability, traditional college majors aren’t going anywhere. Garland has professed that a fundamentally interdisciplinary model, such as Mr. Taylor’s, would be an extreme error.
Even though it is highly unlikely that a change will occur any time soon, how would it affect students if it did? While a model like Taylor’s is innovative and sounds well on paper, would it really help? Many students who graduate college cannot find a job, even though they now have a degree in a specific field. Taylor and Zemsky both proposed the idea of new majors that focus around certain problems, such as ‘water’ and ‘mind’. This is a good idea, speculatively, and if the notion were put into practice, there would be an increase of people specialized in certain areas. Graduates possessing those new specialized degrees might easily obtain the new jobs created in their specialties. That sounds good, at first. Later, however, those same people might be at a severe disadvantage. The world only needs so many specialists. Say, at a certain time, the majority of students wanted to major in ‘water’ because there were plenty of jobs available and the pay was excellent. Now, take a single student. This student graduates with his degree in ‘water’, along with thousands of other students, and intends on getting a job that requires a degree in water, but there are only a limited number of jobs available now. What is that new graduate to do? There aren’t many other jobs that call for a degree in ‘water’. The new graduate is not capable of finding any other form of employment because he isn’t certified in any other field but ‘water’. Had the student majored in a more general subject, such as biology, there would have been a wider variety of jobs accessible to him.
One must also consider the long term harm of reformation within the college system. If all people are certified in only one highly specific field, without the knowledge that a broader field would bring, what will happen when the situation arises where someone, or many people, need to collaborate together to form a solution to a detrimental problem? In fact, would not such narrow specializations breed isolation among the general populace? If all people are only capable of discussing things within their own narrow field, how will learning take place? How will new ideas evolve? I personally believe that this type of reformation would breed true stagnation in the academic world. As Copp pointed out, the system that we have now is an ever-changing one; it will grow and expand over time as need be and will mold to suit the needs of those who use it. Is such a drastic change as that implicated by both Zemsky and Taylor really necessary for a change of pace in academics? Could not the original design that has existed for years be tweaked? Is it really even the system? Maybe it is just what we, as students, professors, law makers, and passersby make of it.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Sams, Kristen. (2009). Evolving Majors
The nation and the world are continuously changing. Among those changes are the types of college education that people pursue. College majors, too, are constantly changing and evolving to suit new needs. Some of these new majors are forensic accounting, new media, and computer game design. Ten years ago these majors did not even exist. However, today they can be studied in colleges across the nation.
Forensic accountants “detect and interpret the evidences of both normal and abnormal phenomena introduced into the books and records of an accounting and the resultant effect upon the accounts, inventories, and the presentation thereof” (Crumbley, 2009). What caused people to need forensic accountants? Corruption, thievery, and embezzlement could be the likely causes for a major such as accounting to evolve a new branch, forensic accounting. Accounting students now have the opportunity to choose a major proven to evolve as necessary. Their choices are no longer limited to traditional accounting. In forensic accounting, not only can students work as accountants, but they can work as “money detectives” (Kulla, 2009). I plan on becoming an accountant myself and the thought of possibly becoming a forensic accountant sounds extremely enticing.
Similarly, the computer media industry is developing and changing every day. Luckily, for students interested in pursuing media jobs there is now a newly evolved major, new media. According to Indiana University South Bend’s Office of Communication and Marketing, this degree may be ideal for students who “wish to prepare for careers in new media arts such as gallery and installation art; commercial, marketing, training and sales applications; interactive and distance education applications, medical imaging, game design, Web site design, digital filmmaking and applications in digital audio and music.” The new media major opens up countless possibilities for students in the computer media industry. The Internet, just one part of new media, provides many opportunities for advertising and promoting businesses and ideas. That rapidly-growing segment of the industry alone will provide many employment opportunities. College graduates with a degree in new media would less likely encounter hardships in the workforce because there are other outlets beyond the Internet. Media has become an important factor in everyday life and continues to grow and change along with the times, so it is just as important for computer technology majors to evolve alongside these changes.
The gaming industry, too, has grown considerably within the last few years. As technology continues to expand and reconstruct, a new major has come into play: computer game design. Some college programs “like the computer games development program in DePaul University, focus on the programming of games while others, like the game art and design program at the Art Institute of Phoenix, concentrate on the visual design” (Kulla, 2009, np). Gaming students require a great deal of education and must expend much effort to succeed in creating gaming design programs. For instance, designers must attend to minute details in order to create the best games; or those consumers will not buy them. It takes hard work and dedication to become a game designer. The computer game design specialty has evolved greatly from the technological and computer majors that preceded them. The reason they have evolved is simply because of the demand for new games. With such a high demand for new games, the only option left was to create a major that game designers would enjoy and actually work hard to achieve.
All academic majors need the opportunity to evolve and sometimes even reconstruct themselves over time. Sometimes, however, people believe that college majors should remain unchanged. I disagree. Over time, majors must be allowed to evolve in order to adapt to new and changing needs and wants. Thus, all majors should have more room to grow and adapt. Education should not be stuck when everything else is evolving constantly.
Although the nation and the world are constantly changing, college education majors like forensic accounting, new media, and computer game design are in a constant race to evolve alongside. College majors that can evolve and adapt to an ever changing world will never disappear.
References
Crumbley, D. Larry. Journal of Forensic Accounting. 10 September 2009.
Forensic accountants “detect and interpret the evidences of both normal and abnormal phenomena introduced into the books and records of an accounting and the resultant effect upon the accounts, inventories, and the presentation thereof” (Crumbley, 2009). What caused people to need forensic accountants? Corruption, thievery, and embezzlement could be the likely causes for a major such as accounting to evolve a new branch, forensic accounting. Accounting students now have the opportunity to choose a major proven to evolve as necessary. Their choices are no longer limited to traditional accounting. In forensic accounting, not only can students work as accountants, but they can work as “money detectives” (Kulla, 2009). I plan on becoming an accountant myself and the thought of possibly becoming a forensic accountant sounds extremely enticing.
Similarly, the computer media industry is developing and changing every day. Luckily, for students interested in pursuing media jobs there is now a newly evolved major, new media. According to Indiana University South Bend’s Office of Communication and Marketing, this degree may be ideal for students who “wish to prepare for careers in new media arts such as gallery and installation art; commercial, marketing, training and sales applications; interactive and distance education applications, medical imaging, game design, Web site design, digital filmmaking and applications in digital audio and music.” The new media major opens up countless possibilities for students in the computer media industry. The Internet, just one part of new media, provides many opportunities for advertising and promoting businesses and ideas. That rapidly-growing segment of the industry alone will provide many employment opportunities. College graduates with a degree in new media would less likely encounter hardships in the workforce because there are other outlets beyond the Internet. Media has become an important factor in everyday life and continues to grow and change along with the times, so it is just as important for computer technology majors to evolve alongside these changes.
The gaming industry, too, has grown considerably within the last few years. As technology continues to expand and reconstruct, a new major has come into play: computer game design. Some college programs “like the computer games development program in DePaul University, focus on the programming of games while others, like the game art and design program at the Art Institute of Phoenix, concentrate on the visual design” (Kulla, 2009, np). Gaming students require a great deal of education and must expend much effort to succeed in creating gaming design programs. For instance, designers must attend to minute details in order to create the best games; or those consumers will not buy them. It takes hard work and dedication to become a game designer. The computer game design specialty has evolved greatly from the technological and computer majors that preceded them. The reason they have evolved is simply because of the demand for new games. With such a high demand for new games, the only option left was to create a major that game designers would enjoy and actually work hard to achieve.
All academic majors need the opportunity to evolve and sometimes even reconstruct themselves over time. Sometimes, however, people believe that college majors should remain unchanged. I disagree. Over time, majors must be allowed to evolve in order to adapt to new and changing needs and wants. Thus, all majors should have more room to grow and adapt. Education should not be stuck when everything else is evolving constantly.
Although the nation and the world are constantly changing, college education majors like forensic accounting, new media, and computer game design are in a constant race to evolve alongside. College majors that can evolve and adapt to an ever changing world will never disappear.
References
Crumbley, D. Larry. Journal of Forensic Accounting. 10 September 2009
Indiana University South Bend. 9 May 2008. 7 September 2009
Kulla, Bridget. Ten Majors that Didn't Exist Ten Years Ago. 8 September 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
Dr. James Willis Discusses SAU Traditions
Dr. James Willis, SAU Archivist and retired professor of history and political science spoke to the two Honors Seminar courses today. His topic was the history of SAU traditions. He started with SAU's colors, blue and gold, the same colors as those of the National Farmer's Educational and Cooperative Union. In the early part of the 20th century it was the largest farmer's union and the most liberal. The union was instrumental in lobbying for high schools that taught scientific farming. Willis went on to cover the origin of the mulerider mascot, how the yearbook changed from the Monitor to the Mulerider, and when the Bray first appeared.Willis also talked about how the student body composition changed over the years including when the first African-American matriculated and the rise in international student numbers. Willis reminisced about his student days too. When at SSC he lived in Graham (demolished to make space for Honors North) and in Graham Annex (now Honors South).
Dr. Willis' history of SAU, The Mulerider School's Centennial History 1909-2009, will be published soon, with a book signing scheduled for November 30, 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)