|
If you make a degree a prerequisite to getting a specific job, or even a specific job at a specific (higher) pay scale, you always end up with people treating traditional four-year programs like trade schools. Especially if you also make people think of trade schools as where you go if you only barely passed high school, or if you failed high school and wound up with a GED. (And we could recurse and talk about how one-size-fits-all high schools aren't the only option, either, but we won't.) Now you have four-year programs becoming the only option. This leads to a mix of philosophies, and by 'mix of philosophies' I mean 'raucous all-out war between two different groups punctuated by useless tracts calling for peace like this one.' The two different groups are the people who want to understand the theory at a respectable university level and the people who are on a fetch quest to get the paper to get the best ending (uh, job). Neither group is wrong, but one group would be much better served by a non-stigmatized trade school system. This fight invariably leads to the airing of two philosophies: One, the student-as-customer philosophy, says that as long as tuition costs money the schools damned well better dance to the students' tune chop chop. They're more sympathetic than that once you realize how eager companies are to shitcan anyone who doesn't have enough letters after their name, which might actually be the real problem. The other, the university-as-noble-institution philosophy, says that universities are places apart from the world where real research can be done and grants can be funded and, incidentally, there are these undergrad things running around that the exterminators refuse to extirpate so we might as well rope some researchers into making them the next generation of people educated enough to further our culture and, incidentally, keep our technical society from collapsing. In this model, the students don't get to influence pedagogy and coursework and so on because they, as per hypothesis, aren't educated enough to know what they want: If they were they could teach themselves and save everyone a lot of money. Like I said, neither philosophy is wrong. It's just that one of them should be in a completely different set of institutions. |
Sixty years ago, finishing high-school was a major accomplishment, opening lots of opportunities. One went to college because he/she wanted to learn stuff which will be useful on his/her voyage to the frontiers of human knowledge. Intellectual curiosity is the main motivating factor for this kind of people.
College education today assumes the same role that high-school education had 60 years ago, and it's NOT because there's more stuff that has to be learned. (I think 12 years of education is more than enough to keep the world spinning. We're just doing it wrong, but that's another story. Paul Lockheart's Mathematician's Lament is a great read on this subject, feel lucky on Google). The question is, what will provide today what colleges provided 60 years ago?
I don't mean to sound catastrophic. Top-class research is being done today as well. It's just that we're making things unnecessarily hard for everybody.