Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!hubcap!billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu From: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 ) Newsgroups: comp.edu Subject: Re: Education Message-ID: <7519@hubcap.clemson.edu> Date: 22 Dec 89 21:18:20 GMT References: Sender: news@hubcap.clemson.edu Reply-To: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu Lines: 78 From bralick@cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick): > | >> People in the ghetto are good for being anything they want to be; > | > > | > Unless they want to become an historian, a writer, etc. > | > | That's fine, too; anyone who wants to do this should be free to > | do it, using a program which sends them straight into their field > | of choice. This differs sharply from the Bralick method, in which > | everyone must study lots of BS which is irrelevant to their interests, > | whatever those interests might be. > > It _is_ relevant to their interest for them to study history. It may > not be _pleasurable_ (at least initially), but it is in their interest. If that were true, then they would choose it voluntarily. > Humanities may not be immediately gratifying, but they are not > "irrelevant" to the student's interests. How is one supposed to > be aware that certain "fields" even exist without having been > exposed to them? Simple... expose them to the library instead. > The lifelong learning is something one does on one's own -- not for > a certificate that makes one more competitive for that raise. Hey, Will, there's a typo in the above sentence... the "not" needs to be removed... :-| -- I'm deadly serious > At what age is an individual encouraged to choose his profession? As soon as possible, since knowing your objective will keep you from having to take randomly selected courses while the objective is still being determined. > | I ask only that we set up such a system and let it freely compete > | with the "traditional" bullshit-laden system; the free market will > | provide conclusive evidence of what is best. > > Let me see if I can explain this one last time. It is not simply > an economic question. This individual is not just being trained for > a job. This individual will also be a voter and possibly a parent. Severely retarded persons are legally empowered to vote; if there are to be any voting requirements, they must be consistently imposed upon the entire voting population. Courses on parenting are a good example of how educators could offer courses which might well be taken VOLUNTARILY, and further efforts by educators along these lines are to be encouraged. > This individual cannot predict the exact course of his future, and > so would be ill-served by being turned into an over-specialized > barbarian. This individual needs general tools from which he can > specialize when necessary. I have absolutely no objection to leaving "generalization" programs as an OPTION. The reality is that employers want *specialists* -- they will even ask for ten years' experience in an area which has only existed for five!! Recent articles in misc.jobs.misc have detailed the great troubles which befall those who have naively followed the claims of educators regarding generalization as a virtue. Thus, the free market will slam graduates of generalist programs flat on their faces even more strongly as the specialized competition intensifies. It's sad that some students are naive enough to listen to such advice from people who largely possess no non-academic professional experience whatsoever, but they do wind up eventually paying the price and learning their lesson. Retraining is essential; no program, regardless of how general, is going to enable one to be competitive in all possible professions at once. If I decide I'm tired of being a computer professional and would like to become a genetic engineer, retraining is completely appropriate and absolutely necessary. Its cost and duration can be minimized by not taking irrelevant, non-productive topics. Bill "Power to the Consumer" Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu