What is middle class in Calgary?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Slava

It's a bit of a tangent of course, but why do people donate to their alma mater? I get calls from mine and I just feel like there are many other worthy causes for me to give donations to. I paid for my education and kind of feel like that was enough money for the school, but maybe I'm missing something?

They're trying to copy the culture of American colleges, where a big portion of their revenues come from alumni and endowments. Philanthropic support accounts for 10 per cent of all college revenue in the U.S. As recently as 2000, it accounted for 16 per cent. Harvard alone has a $36 billion endowment. Americans often have a much more passionate connection to their alma mater than Canadians do (sports programs help). Canadian universities are trying to build up the same sense of loyalty.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Americans often have a much more passionate connection to their alma mater than Canadians do (sports programs help). Canadian universities are trying to build up the same sense of loyalty.

Definitely, in the US, where you went to school is a huge deal. It's not only a source of pride, but also often important in determining your social and business circle. It's one of the first things that comes up when you meet someone at a party, and people make judgments about you on it. At a lot of places if you don't make the cut in terms of the right college, you have no chance. My American wife used to work in a place that only hired graduates from Pratt (a relatively prestigious art school) because that's where the principal went.

It's engrained in them pretty early. Even though she hasn't been in one in a decade, I can sask my wife about pretty much any major college in the US, and she can give me a solid opinion about it in terms of its reputation and what programs it's known for.

[Tyler]

US society is all about tribalism. The obsession about where you spent 4 years in your early 20's is pretty foreign here in Canada.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Tyler

US society is all about tribalism. The obsession about where you spent 4 years in your early 20's is pretty foreign here in Canada.

Unless it was U of A.....filthy swine...

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If there's an institution ripe for technological disruption, it's post-secondary education. Since about ten years ago, back when my kids were born, I've been reading about the educational flip, where those 500 student halls will be replaced by students watching lectures at home on their laptops, and they would come to campus for tutorials and collaborative work with other students. The pedagogical model is there. The technology is there. It would be far cheaper. I figured a new system might well be in place by the time my kids when to university.

But it's looking that was a fantasy. The institutions themselves are fiercely opposing fundamental reforms to what is essentially a 19th century approach to education - professors standing in halls reading out of books. And the reason half the professors don't want to be there is because they're interested in research, not teaching. Why the two are still so tightly linked is one of those baffling anachronisms that makes the system so frustrating.

Does anyone really believe that if we invented post-secondary education from scratch today, using today's technology and designed to meet the needs of today's workplace, it would anything remotely like what we have now?

It's funny how consumer/voter price sensitivity about the cost of everything from hotels to snow removal to TVs to houses can influence the market and politics, often massively. But everyone behaves as though the relentlessly rising cost of post-secondary education is something we simply have to endure, that it's out of our hands and we just have to accept it.

Fuzz is exactly right that it's a racket.

??

How is this any different than getting a degree via correspondence? The technology and platform is already there, but there's a serious belief that going to the physical locations themselves are better. For right or wrong, some of the reasons why people believe uni/college degree in person is better than correspondence:

- Social aspect is a huge part of the learning. Possibly moreso than the degree itself. The relationships you make in school can/are easily more valuable than the base degree(s) you acquire.

- Working with others in a class is an important skill when going into the workforce.

- Being in a class with others causes you to be more focused on getting the degree done. Most people find they slack off easily when getting a degree at home.

- Explaining something in person is often times far more effective than via correspondence. (ie: IT)


I don't disagree with you that many people do not utilize the above during their studies. I also agree there's some serious problems with how the "education" is being done (business model) and some of the quality of many students that walk out of that system. But I am merely pointing out, the "fantasy" you're talking about already exists and many people use it. It's just not as popular as going to the institution themselves yet.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Locke

Unless it was U of A.....filthy swine...

did you know the U of C was started as a satellite campus of the U of A?
anyone that has gone there has U of A taint.

[Fuzz]

For the most part, the first 2 years of a lot of degrees could largely be done by watching a video of the lecture, and going in to do lab work. 500 person lectures are pointless for any individual. If the curriculum is designed properly though, the following years would still benefit from actual classes of 50 or so. That was my experience, anyway. I think some sort of hybrid of the 2 would work well and save a lot of money.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

did you know the U of C was started as a satellite campus of the U of A?
anyone that has gone there has U of A taint.

I'll never acknowledge the University of Oilers!

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

For the most part, the first 2 years of a lot of degrees could largely be done by watching a video of the lecture, and going in to do lab work. 500 person lectures are pointless for any individual. If the curriculum is designed properly though, the following years would still benefit from actual classes of 50 or so. That was my experience, anyway. I think some sort of hybrid of the 2 would work well and save a lot of money.

People skip class all the time and share notes. If all the lectures were via video... cram sessions would be so different going forward.

[GirlySports]

Not just MRU. Many other Universities opening like St. Mary's , Ambrose, Rundle etc...

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

??

How is this any different than getting a degree via correspondence? The technology and platform is already there, but there's a serious belief that going to the physical locations themselves are better. For right or wrong, some of the reasons why people believe uni/college degree in person is better than correspondence:

Maybe I didn't explain the flip well.

Our current system is people go to lectures on campus to have a prof broadcast content to them, then go off on their own to do the actual course work or collaborative work. The flip proposes the opposite - lectures are accessed independently and on your own time. You still go on campus and still work with others, but in coursework and small learning groups, not lectures.

https://facultyinnovate.utexas.edu/s...ble-120516.pdf




There is no interaction in classes of 200 or 400 students. Or even 60. None. It's an entirely passive one-way process, and it's the foundation of undergraduate education. And the generation that first experienced that mass-consumer model of education, the ones who went to university in the 80s and 90s, know what the score is. They know it's a joke. And now they're ponying up for their kids to go through the same charade.

The reason sitting your ass in lectures for 4 hours a day is still the done thing is because the degrees from traditional institutions are still the only ones that are considered legitimate. It has nothing to do with the experience itself.

As I said, if you invented post-secondary education today, with today's tools, it would look nothing like the 19th century model we cling to. I think anyone who has graduated from a college or university in the last 20 or 30 years will applaud when the system is radically transformed by innovation.

[dobbles]

Originally Posted by blankall

Sorry, I should clarify. I was referring to "Liberal Arts" programs in universities, which includes: humanities, social sciences, history, philosophy, non-applied sciences, etc...

At most universities, most undergrads (exceptions like Engineering) are either Bachelor of Science or Bachelor of Arts programs. When we refer to the "arts" degrees, we are referring to Bachelor of Arts degrees. You're talking more about applied arts or fine arts. Most of the careers you're referring to would require education in technical schools, which would have more in common with a trade than a Bachelor of Arts program at a University.

Even then, I don't think liberal arts programs are useless, we just have way too many students enrolled in them and the standards for passing them are way too low. The government needs to step in and say, we only need X amount of people with a sociology degree, so only X amounts of spots will be available. Instead, they allow unlimited amounts of students, it becomes like a 2nd highschool. The students leave totally unsatisfied with their job prospects, and our economy has to import labour with actual skills.

Not sure if this is just a difference in education between Canada and the states, but that distinction is an incorrect one from all I know. B.S. accreditation involves programs with fewer general ed courses and more focus towards the area of study. B.A. degrees might have less classwork requirements in the specialty but more general education requirements. Here is a random link I found that describes it.

And this is not necessarily a new thing. I went to a small liberal arts school and graduated in December of 2004. I received a B.A. in mathematics. I took my fair share of math courses but we also had required classes each year on bigger picture topics. I recall the course I took my senior year was on cosmology and creation.

[dobbles]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Definitely, in the US, where you went to school is a huge deal. It's not only a source of pride, but also often important in determining your social and business circle. It's one of the first things that comes up when you meet someone at a party, and people make judgments about you on it. At a lot of places if you don't make the cut in terms of the right college, you have no chance. My American wife used to work in a place that only hired graduates from Pratt (a relatively prestigious art school) because that's where the principal went.

It's engrained in them pretty early. Even though she hasn't been in one in a decade, I can sask my wife about pretty much any major college in the US, and she can give me a solid opinion about it in terms of its reputation and what programs it's known for.

I think outside of the top echelon, specific colleges mean little. Sure there are always people that use alumni networks for career moves, but mostly it becomes about sports rivalries and is pretty inconsequential in my experience.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Maybe I didn't explain the flip well.

Our current system is people go to lectures on campus to have a prof broadcast content to them, then go off on their own to do the actual course work or collaborative work. The flip proposes the opposite - lectures are accessed independently and on your own time. You still go on campus and still work with others, but in coursework and small learning groups, not lectures.

https://facultyinnovate.utexas.edu/s...ble-120516.pdf




There is no interaction in classes of 200 or 400 students. Or even 60. None. It's an entirely passive one-way process, and it's the foundation of undergraduate education. And the generation that first experienced that mass-consumer model of education, the ones who went to university in the 80s and 90s, know what the score is. They know it's a joke. And now they're ponying up for their kids to go through the same charade.

The reason sitting your ass in lectures for 4 hours a day is still the done thing is because the degrees from traditional institutions are still the only ones that are considered legitimate. It has nothing to do with the experience itself.

As I said, if you invented post-secondary education today, with today's tools, it would look nothing like the 19th century model we cling to. I think anyone who has graduated from a college or university in the last 20 or 30 years will applaud when the system is radically transformed by innovation.

Your image shows why universities are resistant. See how many students there are per professor in the left, vs. the right? It's not accurate. The left should have 200 students, and the right should have 20. The amount of manpower that would be needed to accommodate the "flip" is beyond most universities abilities. Heck, they seem to have trouble maintaining the staff they have - at the bigger universities, that is.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by dobbles

I think outside of the top echelon, specific colleges mean little. Sure there are always people that use alumni networks for career moves, but mostly it becomes about sports rivalries and is pretty inconsequential in my experience.

I think where you got your undergrad is irrelevant (assuming it's a real school ) - whether you got your BA in History from Harvard or U of C means nothing in practical terms. It's only when you specialize in grad school and have access to individual education, so to speak, that it really actually matters where you went and who the prof is.

[Shazam]

My 3rd and 4th year courses had 5-20 students in them. Heck, the first year integrals course I took had like 5 students.

First year Psych courses were popular, some of the first year science; organic chem wasn't too popular though.

Maybe things are different now. Just find your profs on Tumblr and blackmail them.

[AnonymousStranger]

I don't mean to be a snob and I definitely don't mean to look down on blue collar people, but the fact of the matter is blue collar workers spend their days working in an environment where their decorum is not an important factor. This seeps into their interactions with everyone else which results in more cursing/rough language and less filtering of expressed thoughts. I'm not a purse-clutching prude, but sorry I do tend to notice things like this as do most people.

[slots881]

Originally Posted by AnonymousStranger

I don't mean to be a snob and I definitely don't mean to look down on blue collar people, but the fact of the matter is blue collar workers spend their days working in an environment where their decorum is not an important factor. This seeps into their interactions with everyone else which results in more cursing/rough language and less filtering of expressed thoughts. I'm not a purse-clutching prude, but sorry I do tend to notice things like this as do most people.

Wow

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by AnonymousStranger

I don't mean to be a snob and I definitely don't mean to look down on blue collar people, but the fact of the matter is blue collar workers spend their days working in an environment where their decorum is not an important factor. This seeps into their interactions with everyone else which results in more cursing/rough language and less filtering of expressed thoughts. I'm not a purse-clutching prude, but sorry I do tend to notice things like this as do most people.

As a guy who has spent a fair amount of time with investment bankers, i would beg to differ with this thesis!!

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Knalus

Your image shows why universities are resistant. See how many students there are per professor in the left, vs. the right? It's not accurate. The left should have 200 students, and the right should have 20. The amount of manpower that would be needed to accommodate the "flip" is beyond most universities abilities. Heck, they seem to have trouble maintaining the staff they have - at the bigger universities, that is.

That's a fair comment. But the flip is often promoted in tandem with the de-coupling of teaching from research. So those instructors wouldn't be tenured professors who only spend 30-50 per cent of their time on instruction. Most universities would employ far fewer researchers, and replace them with full-time, dedicated educators and trainers.