Is there such a term as "edmill"? A process of mass producing cheap labor for low-paid positions. This post just smells of hype and marketing for something like that.
I think back in the Soviet-influenced days of my country, people went to college knowing which job they'll be assigned at graduation. I guess this is the modern day PTUs? [1]
Soviet block country here as well. However, profession training schools are not communist invention and have their place in educating people for useful jobs. At least, I don't know how to build a high-quality bathroom and I don't think that people who can should not be valued less than someone who can make a terrible electron app. My UX in the former is much better tbh. :)
My issue is that this stuff now pretends to substitute for colleges which is totally different category. Six months of youtube videos are just professional training for office workers of the disposable type, not the creative/problem-solving variety that needs broad understanding of the field.
I agree with you about PTUs having their place in planned and free market economies alike. I think you’re saying that if people have the option to go to a good “traditional” school and learn CS there (and meet a bunch of students and professors, etc), they shouldn’t throw away that option for something like this, is that right?
On the other hand, I feel like there are plenty of people who have either graduated with a humanities degree or simply do not have the ability to go to a good technical school: I would hope that this provides a new on-ramp for people like that, and it actually adds value to people’s lives. Even though as most people here have stipulated, this seems commercially motivated by Google’s interests.
My issue with those courses is that they teach you the "hows" of a problem, but not the "Whys". Completing them, you know how to perform a certain task, maybe even according to best practices, but you don't know why those practices are good, when they are bad choice, what are the alternatives. Ones the assumptions of the course break, it becomes useless. Without the deeper understanding of the field, moving to a newer technology, framework, or even gui interface might turn out to be a struggle.
Yes, such courses might be useful to fill in gaps in one's education, but it can't substitute said education. Low-quality tech graduates might profit, but humanities graduates won't become decent developers, at least not without continuous training for years which might take as long as a second degree.
Short answer: Yes, highly-focused skills-centric but narrow education has a long history.
Longer answer:
It's useful to keep in mind the (usually) unstated goals of educational systems:
- Produce a technically-skilled, but politically pliable, working class.
- Produce a managerially competent, but not revolutionary, management and professional class.
- Persist existing power structures, whatever their form; political, cultural, corporate, religious, technical, epistemic.
The fundamental division in education has long been between liberal education and technical education, and can be traced to the emergence of the modern university in the 11th century (Bologna, 1088, Oxford, 1096), if not to the Romans and Greeks distinguishing the ars liberalis, and artes mechanicae, the latter also called the "servile" or "mechanical" arts. This later expands to basic literacy skills ("'readin', 'ritin', and 'rithmetic", the "three Rs"), and basic skills vs. higher-order thinking skills, on which there is much long-standing debate and contention.
In the industrial era, Prussian and Humboldtian education reforms instituted universal compulsory scientific and technical (rather than religious) education, largely at state expense, from Kindergarten, and including a university system for advanced education. With increasing demand for basically literate workers under factory and clerical work as well as technically-skilled workers in heavy industry, chemical, agricultural, transport, communications, information, government, and military sectors, the basic outlines of this system were widely adopted in industrialised countries through the 19th and 20th centuries.
The first technical, polytechnic, and engineering universities emerged in the 19th century. M.I.T. as a leading exemplar, though not the first, was founded in 1861. It was preceded by others, with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) possibly the earliest in 1821. Notably, technical schools were among the first to offer specifically-focused courses of study, persisting to this day in the numbered M.I.T. catologue, where lower-numbered offerings are generally more fundamental and earliest-established, modulo some subsequent subdivision.
Major expansions occurred through and following major wars, including the US Civil Way (founding of M.I.T.), and the first and second World Wars, as well as the post-war / Cold War era, notably Vannevar Bush's "Science, The Endless Frontier" (https://nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm)
The Academic Major system began emerging in the early 19th century, though it would not really reach recognisable form (or be named) until after 1875. It replaced a general liberal education university system without formal major emphasis.
The post-1960 public research university is exemplified through projects such as the California Master Plan for Higher Education, 1960, strongly driven by governor Pat Brown and University of California president Clark Kerr. That effort was itself a reaction to an earlier technological monopoly, that of the railroads. Similar expansions occurred elsewhere, see the Robbins Report (1963) for the UK, or a set of Chinese initiatives since the 1990s: the Double First Class University Plan, Project 211, Project 985, or the C9 League.
In the US (and strongly similarly in much of the industrialised world), a de facto if not explicit hierarchy of prestigious highly-selective top-tier universities (largely private though with some public institutions), other highly selective schools (many state university systems). These are followed by less selective institutions, many formerly state colleges, "normal schools" (teachers' colleges), and numerous smaller private schools, and some polytechnics and ag & tech schools. Community colleges ("junior colleges") may feed 4-year programmes or directly train workforce, and are generally not selective (all applicants are accepted). Public and private vocational schools, as well as company-specific credentialing programmes (CCIE, RHCE, MCSA, OCP, Java SE, etc.) provide a range of skills training and certification, some basic, some advanced technical, some continuing professional education.
The various roles of education as teaching basic skills, higher skills, and cultural indoctrination, were commented on by John Stuart Mill ~1860s Britain, as noted by Hans Jensen, subject to various forms of control and coercion, largely via funding or lack thereof:
First, the universities were given the task of providing an unceasing supply of ideologically correct candidates for vital positions in government, church, and business. The state was able to make the faculties of the "venerable institutions" of higher education, or rather indoctrination, assume this duty because it controlled appointments and held the purse from which "emoluments" flowed into the coffers of academics....
The state devised a second educational strategy in order to prevent such a calamity from occurring. According to Mill, the "elementary schools for children of the working classes" were given the task of ensuring that the poor would continue to accept docilely their dismal station in life. It was very easy for the state to force the public schools to assume this role. It did so simply by failing malignantly to allocate sufficient funds for the operations of what Mill identified contemptuously as "places called schools"...
A question is where we should draw the line between education never being able to teach everything that one needs and education being only a way to utilize people. I would put it where a skill let's you acquire additional knowledge and capabilities, such like reading, math, logic, and the like. In that sense, MIT and teaching someone how to use excel for project reports go in different categories.
This is an opinion only though. The debate is rather large and it has many nuances.
Yeah, I've been kicking these ideas around for a while.
There are a few directions we could take this. Some freaks (myself) find them all fascinating.
There's the development of modern business comms and procedures, notably at railroads and DuPont Chemical. Joanne Yates has written a history. These became codified in business practices training.
Standardisation itself has been a tremendous advance, much of it lead by a Republican, Herbert Hoover, as Commerce Secretary.
The establishment of common practices, methods, and skills is itself a powerful asset for companies. Armies of workers skilled in typing, filing, programming languages, operating systems, productivity software, and more, make the underlying companies' products and services more valuable.
The classification of skills on a hierarchy is its own mess --- from basic to complex. Breaking apart the Seven Liberal Arts into their sub-groupings of the trivium (grammar, logic, rhetoric --- think of these as input, precessing, and output), and quadrivium (maths, geometry, music, and astronomy --- quantity, quantity in space, quantity in time, and quantity in space and time), reveals some of this. I've been considering similar fundamental divisions of technical mechanisms to fundamental dynamics or elements.
Or the classical professions: medicine, law, theology, business. Later engineering and technology in its own right.
There's the durability or ephemerality of knowledge, skills, and equipment. I've been in tech long enough to have some sense of what does and does not endure, possibly even why. Future Sock spoke to this 50 years ago.
Then there is the nature, history, and function of education, as institution, as sevice, as profession, its roles in society, culture, business, industry, politics, and military. The impacts of the wars of the 19th & 20th centuries really cannot be overstated. There are many tensions, and many covert or latent functions (a wonderful concept from sociologist Robert K. Melton).
I would argue the first polytechnic is the École Polytechnique (1794) in France. It served as a model for institutions in Germany and especially Canada (Polytechnique Montreal, 1873).
The French one, however, was founded as a military school but the general course structure and focus on engineering transcended time.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_technical_school