The Democrat Thread

[Soxy]

One thing that I have NEVER understood is why a technical school education is not given more consideration and value in our society.

 

In a nutshell, it's because education (prior to the about 1900 in this country) was NOT to prepare you for a trade. Prior to the last century the point of education was to prepare men to be good citizens. So, they were instructed in ethics, philosophies, art, history (what we now consider the humanities) in the hopes of preparing the citizenry. If you think about the Liberal Arts (or a Liberal education) you can see the direct descendent of this type of educational philosophy. The belief was that this broad education would allow men (WEALTHY men) to lead effectively.

 

Now, around 1865 or so there was the start of a new trend: land grant colleges. The point of a landgrant college was to educate one and all. (Even today landgrant colleges have guidelines about majors and whom they may admit.) The landgrant colleges often began as teaching schools or trade schools. As time went on they were often enveloped or taken over or joined with more "traditional" universities. They were more career oriented and more science (and around the midwest: agriculturally) minded.

 

So, the reason that "tech schools" are mostly looked down upon is probably because they are new and they are affiliated with less wealthy students/alumni than say Harvard or other private institutions. In fact, if you look at cheap schools (i.e. your state schools) you will usually see them being much more comprehensive and less focused on education for education's sake (more career oriented). (One exception to this would be the rather new Public Liberal Arts colleges represented together as COPLAC.) The more select and expensive the school (in general) the closer the tie to the old philosophy of education as a way to provide a broad general education for creating a moral citizenry.

 

For more on the history you can check out Derek Bok's book about how america's colleges suck ass (not the title, but i can't remember it).

[mr_genius]

One thing that I have NEVER understood is why a technical school education is not given more consideration and value in our society.

 

it would be interesting to see a technical school in the US with curriculum as challenging as a good program at a major university.

[kapkomet]

The problem we've got right now is we're out of the situation where every minority applicant is unqualified...but the inherent disadvantage hasn't been removed, so it sets up the scenario Kap cites here. I think the salary data right now clearly suggests that even with guys like Kap being passed over for positions, no one can argue effectively that we've reached a position of true "equality" in employment/hiring practices.

 

The problem is...no matter what we do, it's totally unfair to someone and it's going to piss some people off. If you get rid of all AA programs, then when an African American gets turned down for a job at some bank or some company by a guy who happens to not like White People, he or she is going to be just as angry as Kap. Or, if the minority applicant just can't get into a top college because he or she didn't go to an exclusive enough high school, same boat.

 

Balta, seriously for a moment, I'm not angry. I'm really not. I understand how the game is played. I've been on the other side of the management table and I've been told that I have to hire certain "qualifications" - and that always meant hire a woman over a man - but then make sure she's not going to get pregnant and leave us... how crappy is that? I think that's a travesty.

 

I absolutely agree with the point you were trying to make about minorities being even more qualfied. Guess what? I want them in my department, in a heartbeat. And it's not because of woman, black, white, purple, gay, whatever... they are QUALIFIED. Is it right, though, that I have to hire a less qualified woman or hispanic or african american then the white guy?

 

Like I said, I've been on both sides of the table. I know all the tricks, games, and crap that goes on out there. And I HATE the regulations telling me what I have to do. THAT makes me angry - I don't get angry when it's me being passed over, because if that manager is bound to that, the company sucks anyway because they're too much into the game playing, whether "mandated" or not.

[kapkomet]

In a nutshell, it's because education (prior to the about 1900 in this country) was NOT to prepare you for a trade. Prior to the last century the point of education was to prepare men to be good citizens. So, they were instructed in ethics, philosophies, art, history (what we now consider the humanities) in the hopes of preparing the citizenry. If you think about the Liberal Arts (or a Liberal education) you can see the direct descendent of this type of educational philosophy. The belief was that this broad education would allow men (WEALTHY men) to lead effectively.

 

Now, around 1865 or so there was the start of a new trend: land grant colleges. The point of a landgrant college was to educate one and all. (Even today landgrant colleges have guidelines about majors and whom they may admit.) The landgrant colleges often began as teaching schools or trade schools. As time went on they were often enveloped or taken over or joined with more "traditional" universities. They were more career oriented and more science (and around the midwest: agriculturally) minded.

 

So, the reason that "tech schools" are mostly looked down upon is probably because they are new and they are affiliated with less wealthy students/alumni than say Harvard or other private institutions. In fact, if you look at cheap schools (i.e. your state schools) you will usually see them being much more comprehensive and less focused on education for education's sake (more career oriented). (One exception to this would be the rather new Public Liberal Arts colleges represented together as COPLAC.) The more select and expensive the school (in general) the closer the tie to the old philosophy of education as a way to provide a broad general education for creating a moral citizenry.

 

For more on the history you can check out Derek Bok's book about how america's colleges suck ass (not the title, but i can't remember it).

 

 

it would be interesting to see a technical school in the US with curriculum as challenging as a good program at a major university.

 

I don't buy genius, I really don't. There are some technical schools out there that teach trades incredibly well. So, here's a thought, a great trade school that teach doctors and nurses vs. 4+4+4 year institutions... when in reality none of it matters until the last 4 years. So, why isn't there a kick butt 4 year doctor school that teaches the technical stuff and then we won't have to have physicians owing $250K right out of school?

 

Machinery and equipment. Liberal arts schools aren't going to teach that.

 

It's how they are branded, and Soxy, you go into that somewhat (interesting read, thanks). Harvard is always going to be the best, even if private money were to fund the best technical school in the world regarding (xyz) trade. I totally disagree with it, but it's where the money and prestige is, so it won't change... unless it gets rebranded. Isn't that what no child left behind (sic) should be about?

[Soxy]

I don't buy genius, I really don't. There are some technical schools out there that teach trades incredibly well. So, here's a thought, a great trade school that teach doctors and nurses vs. 4+4+4 year institutions... when in reality none of it matters until the last 4 years. So, why isn't there a kick butt 4 year doctor school that teaches the technical stuff and then we won't have to have physicians owing $250K right out of school?

 

Machinery and equipment. Liberal arts schools aren't going to teach that.

 

It's how they are branded, and Soxy, you go into that somewhat (interesting read, thanks). Harvard is always going to be the best, even if private money were to fund the best technical school in the world regarding (xyz) trade. I totally disagree with it, but it's where the money and prestige is, so it won't change... unless it gets rebranded. Isn't that what no child left behind (sic) should be about?

I would argue there isn't a 4 year med school because 18 year olds, in general, lack the maturity to handle curriculum that rigorous. Same with most of the advanced (doctoral/MA) type degrees. Plus, in my experience, a BA is like a 101 course for grad school.

 

I would also make the argument that since we aren't fully cognitively developed until the end of adolescence (about 25) they wouldn't engage with the material properly or at the necessary depth.

 

Also, it isn't just branding it is a completely different approach to education. The goals of a liberal arts institution are fundamentally different from the goals of a technical college.

[kapkomet]

That's a good point on people not being able to handle it until they're 25. It's a lot for anyone to handle.

 

The flip side of my "argument" I just said was (and I've always thought this about higher education) - it's to teach you how to learn, not necessarily the subject matter.

[Soxy]

That's a good point on people not being able to handle it until they're 25. It's a lot for anyone to handle.

 

The flip side of my "argument" I just said was (and I've always thought this about higher education) - it's to teach you how to learn, not necessarily the subject matter.

 

I agree completely. The whole point of Bok's book is essentially college is no longer doing that (in part because they have gotten away from the traditional model and are more technically or career oriented).

[lostfan]

I love it when kap is being the smart guy instead of the jackass, lol

[Balta1701]

I absolutely agree with the point you were trying to make about minorities being even more qualfied. Guess what? I want them in my department, in a heartbeat. And it's not because of woman, black, white, purple, gay, whatever... they are QUALIFIED. Is it right, though, that I have to hire a less qualified woman or hispanic or african american then the white guy?

The simple answer is that you're always going to find more qualified white guys...because the system as it stands is set to churn out qualified white guys, and qualified non-white non-guys aren't the norm in our system.

 

So, what step can we take to fix that? We can't go back in time and undo whatever damage was done on the way up, and we can't make the people who refuse to hire people because they're a minority go away either.

[kapkomet]

The simple answer is that you're always going to find more qualified white guys...because the system as it stands is set to churn out qualified white guys, and qualified non-white non-guys aren't the norm in our system.

 

So, what step can we take to fix that?

 

 

This is where you and I go different paths on this one. On day one of your college, you make your own path. So, I decide to study my ass off and get a 4.0. An asian woman decides to party, she gets a 2.7. I get an internship and kick ass, she does moderately well. SHE decided what she could and could not do, she decided how to spend her time. And yet, she's got an advantage over me because she's an asian woman but I'm more "qualified" because I chose a different path.

 

I know that's not every situation. But, with AA in place, this example strongly benefits a less qualified person to getting a job.

 

This is what differentiates our country, and the advantages we have if people choose to take it. You're going to tell me that a socioeconomic path of an inner city leads to less success. I've experienced this, I didn't grow up with a whole lot, and I went to a pretty racially divided school system with frankly a pretty crappy academic environment. So what makes me "successful", I'm white? I just don't buy it, because that's what opportunity of this country is, IMO. When you begin to push less qualifications it degrades your whole society over time, and we are just starting to get to that shift. Is it there yet? No, but you can start to see it.

 

Edit, you edited your response, . You started to go down where I did, sort of... but ultimately there's enough socioeconomical brainwashing that occurs in inner cities to teach that minorities get more by staying disadvantaged. That's an ugly reality and one that really disappoints me.

Edited August 8, 2010 by kapkomet

[lostfan]

eh I grew up without really having s*** too, but I was really good in school and I had the "luxury" of a stable household so I was pretty lucky there. People are different. I don't think my race had much to do with anything and never really did, but being poor (deciding some months whether we needed hot water or electricity) was the biggest thing. Unfortunately in most cases black/hispanic = poor.

 

Oh and kap although you haven't said it I can guess that I agree with you on one thing - I hate the victim mentality of black folks, blaming other people for factors they actually have more control over than they like to admit. Still I don't think the playing field is really even, all things considered.

Edited August 8, 2010 by lostfan

[Soxy]

This is where you and I go different paths on this one. On day one of your college, you make your own path. So, I decide to study my ass off and get a 4.0. An asian woman decides to party, she gets a 2.7. I get an internship and kick ass, she does moderately well. SHE decided what she could and could not do, she decided how to spend her time. And yet, she's got an advantage over me because she's an asian woman but I'm more "qualified" because I chose a different path.

 

I know that's not every situation. But, with AA in place, this example strongly benefits a less qualified person to getting a job.

 

This is what differentiates our country, and the advantages we have if people choose to take it. You're going to tell me that a socioeconomic path of an inner city leads to less success. I've experienced this, I didn't grow up with a whole lot, and I went to a pretty racially divided school system with frankly a pretty crappy academic environment. So what makes me "successful", I'm white? I just don't buy it, because that's what opportunity of this country is, IMO. When you begin to push less qualifications it degrades your whole society over time, and we are just starting to get to that shift. Is it there yet? No, but you can start to see it.

 

Edit, you edited your response, . You started to go down where I did, sort of... but ultimately there's enough socioeconomical brainwashing that occurs in inner cities to teach that minorities get more by staying disadvantaged. That's an ugly reality and one that really disappoints me.

But the school systems in cities and rural areas (in general) aren't nearly as good as those in the suburbs. I grew up in Oswego and on day 1 of college I have a huge advantage over a kid from Maywood or even Aurora (maybe--I don't know if Maywood is actually bad anymore). And those programs like teach for america (a great thought) it's sending the LEAST qualified teachers to students that are already at a disadvantage. It's not that poor people have more to gain by staying poor, but they don't have equal access to what will make them not poor. Obviously there are exceptions. Some people don't care and are fine staying poor. Some people have enough natural intelligence and a supportive home to rise above. Poverty isn't destiny, but it's a hell of a barrier to overcome.

 

I teach students that are from pretty poor rural communities (and they are mostly white) and I am shocked (seriously SHOCKED) by their preparedness (or lack thereof) for higher education. They have to work a lot harder to maintain a quality of work I would deem acceptable than someone who went to New Trier (sorry NSS) or Wheaton. In addition to attempting to make up for their gaps in their K-12, they also often have to work full time to pay for their education or support their families. These kids (and adults--we get a lot of veterans) are set up to fail. It's not that they want to stay poor. They're just stuck. It is so hard to teach there--not because they're bad students but because it's so hard for them when it's so easy for others. It's unjust.

 

I think this has been covered but essentially AA is basically giving someone with a broken leg an aspirin instead of actually treating the leg.

[Balta1701]

I think this has been covered but essentially AA is basically giving someone with a broken leg an aspirin instead of actually treating the leg.

But treating the leg takes money, and we already know how this country feels about poor people getting medical care.

[bmags]

you would think the popularity of malcom gladwell would fix a lot of these myths. So it is.

[mr_genius]

That's a good point on people not being able to handle it until they're 25. It's a lot for anyone to handle.

 

The flip side of my "argument" I just said was (and I've always thought this about higher education) - it's to teach you how to learn, not necessarily the subject matter.

 

http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/06/bill-gates-education/

 

Bill Gates thinks something is going to die too.

 

No, it’s not physical books like Nicholas Negroponte — instead, Gates thinks the idea of young adults having to go to universities in order to get an education is going to go away relatively soon. Well, provided they’re self-motivated learners.

 

“Five years from now on the web for free you’ll be able to find the best lectures in the world,” Gates said at the Techonomy conference in Lake Tahoe, CA today. “It will be better than any single university,” he continued.

 

 

 

[kapkomet]

http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/06/bill-gates-education/

 

Okay, so? How do you prove that you are paying attention? There has to be a measurement of success somewhere.

[southsider2k5]

Okay, so? How do you prove that you are paying attention? There has to be a measurement of success somewhere.

 

Participation trophies at the end of the semester?

[farmteam]

I teach students that are from pretty poor rural communities (and they are mostly white) and I am shocked (seriously SHOCKED) by their preparedness (or lack thereof) for higher education. They have to work a lot harder to maintain a quality of work I would deem acceptable than someone who went to New Trier (sorry NSS) or Wheaton.

 

As someone who also graduated from New Trier, I've found myself realizing this a lot lately. I knew as I was going through NT that I was receiving a much, much better education than the vast majority of the population (I also had a little different perspective, because I was much less well off than many of my classmates). However, I didn't realize how much better that education was until I got to college (and I go to Indiana, so not necessarily a good nor bad school) and saw how ridiculously unprepared many students were. When I'm in groups and whatnot and see the stuff some group members have written, I wonder how they ever finished high school, let alone got accepted into a decent college.

[Balta1701]

Ted Olson and David Boies were frankly a wrecking crew on the Sunday talk shows.

 

 

 

"A witness stand is a lonely place to lie.

 

We put fear and prejudice on trial, and fear and prejudice lost".

[mr_genius]

Okay, so? How do you prove that you are paying attention? There has to be a measurement of success somewhere.

 

I'm not agreeing with him. For example, i doubt Microsoft would hire someone just because they read stuff on the internet about computer science.

[Balta1701]

I'm not agreeing with him. For example, i doubt Microsoft would hire someone just because they read stuff on the internet about computer science.

Have you tried Vista? If they'd done just that, it would have been an improvement.

[KipWellsFan]

You're right Balta, Ted Olson does make a very sound case.

[mr_genius]

Have you tried Vista? If they'd done just that, it would have been an improvement.

 

that's true

[bmags]

on the other hand, if you really cared, but you could only afford to get into a state school, it is pretty cool that you can instead take lectures from harvard.

[mr_genius]

on the other hand, if you really cared, but you could only afford to get into a state school, it is pretty cool that you can instead take lectures from harvard.

 

definitely. I know MIT currently posts selected lectures and coarse work on the Internet for anyone to read and attempt.