[sjg007]

Well math, stats and engineering prepare you well for a career. CS algorithms and data structures does excluding the practical programming bit... in English you read and write a lot, critical thinking... all of these are critical skills for jobs.

[igk]

Yes and no. Best example I know:you can teach engineering as a very applied trade (basically, here's how to select a technique known to work and here is how to tune it), which is how they tend to do it at the Fachhochschulen, or you can teach it as "here's how previously we stole all the cool ideas from physics and maths and what new techniques we built, you'll hopefully be able to find out how to build on it", which is more common on universities.

Having worked with both, the difference is noticeable. The FH guys are actually usually much better engineers in "standard" problems, cleaner code etc, but if you have to drop down abstraction levels and make your own techniques, the university guys tend to fare better(already filtering out incompetent people). It's a different education, with different goals. One is more general and aims to deepen your general understanding, Hoping you'll be able to derive the techniques. The other focuses more on practical application that will get you a job now and hope you'll learn the deep understanding with time. But there is not as much connection between what is taught as one might think. Likewise, ask any professional trader what they think of academic finance.

My tl,dr is that I think university or something should have the explicit goal of teaching "useless" knowledge with the aim of giving deep understanding. Then everyone who just wants a job can avoid that, and we don't have to water down the curriculum

[usrusr]

Applied vs theoretical. Since the applied kind of knowledge won't stop pouring down on you as long as you stay part of the active workforce I honestly think that it would be an absolute shame to not "waste" the education years on theoreticals. It's quite literally the last chance in most persons' lifes.

[HarryHirsch]

I disagree. The practical knowledge rains down on you every working day. But for laying the foundation you need to take time off and do nothing but reading (didn't Knuth say something similar once). So better get that out of the way early.

[circlefavshape]

Erm ... you're actually agreeing with what the post you're replying to says

[HarryHirsch]

Must finish mug of morning coffee before posting. Comprehension suffers badly otherwise.

[weinzierl]

> My tl,dr is that I think university or something should have the explicit goal of teaching "useless" knowledge with the aim of giving deep understanding.

If you'd ask me which knowledge I found useless as a student and which I find useless now, after several years of work experience, the answers would be pretty different. Not only because I changed but because the world changed. I think "useless" or useful knowledge is not the problem we should worry most - I think teaching education is where the distinction should be made.

In my opinion there should be research universities which teach knowledge from the cutting-edge of research (maybe at the expense of didactic quality). On the other hand there should be something (akin to the fictional FH you described) which focuses on training on the job with professors that are not only qualified in their field of expertise but also good teachers. I don't see the FH, or "University of Applied Sciences" like they tend to call themselves nowadays, to fulfill that role in any way, because the professors there are neither researchers nor teachers. (I have a degree from a FH and one from a regular German university, so I know both systems)

[sjg007]

Well academic research can be a very practical field too. You have to have some intellectual tools (mathematical reasoning, statistical reasoning), specific techniques, proofs etc.. which you apply to your problem domain. The most theoretical of which would be pure math or pure models of systems.

Innovation derives from working from basic principles and logical reasoning about a problem. Understanding the math is seen as important than just using it. You don't have to pursue pure math e.g. proofs but you should understand the usefulness and limitations of the mathematical tools you work with.

Those tools have utility in solving problems as we progress as a society. Otherwise you are in some sense operating blindly.

So education should be obtaining these intellectual tools to reason and think critically about things concerning humanity. Moreover one should seek a diversity of tools and ways of thinking. I feel like this is a huge driver of creativity.

For finance, the number one hedge fund was founded and run by a mathematician. Black-scholes, game theory... Signal processing... it's unfair to not get this exposure!

[arethuza]

Great comment - I think a lot of people go to universities expecting vocational training and are deeply disappointed by all the "useless" stuff that is actually completely irrelevant for a lot of jobs.

Edit: I'm from the UK which is probably closer to the US system than the German one.