Canada's University System

[Hack&Lube]

The other issue we haven't brought up much is that the Universities have a self-seeking profit motive for themselves and from my observation, there is a huge disconnect with the real job market and industry. You have a glut of students graduating into fields for which there are no openings but the universities do not not adjust to these trends as all they care about is taking in more tuition and packing in classes.

Back in university a decade ago, I had several friends and cohorts go into Education as a post-secondary degree. This was of course after their undergraduate degree because they couldn't find any jobs with their undergrad. Once they graduated from education, some of them went into the machinery of the CBE or to other provinces and their various school boards.

Today, few are still working as teachers because there was such a glut of teacher graduates all across the country and so few retirees or schools opening that they were stuck as substitute teachers for years and years. Many ended up going back to trade school or going into the business job market rather than remain in the school system.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I'm not sure I agree a humanities focused classical education makes an architect. Imo that's a STEM degree.

Yeah, you kind of missed the point. The humanities introduce a new context to the technical education you pursue. Frank Gehry credits his love for art and culture as what drove many of his design choices. It was his connection to, and love for, the humanities that made him a visionary and one of the greatest architects in history. The humanities gives us perspective a strictly technical education does not, and the benefit is seen the work produced. The same can be said for any discipline. The more well rounded you are, the better you will be in everything you take on.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

From this thread, I would summarize the main topic of debate is about the utility of modern universities and the value of the dollars and time we are putting into the tuition and education.

STEM and practical degrees have very real certifications and accreditations that empower careers from the get go. Liberal arts degrees do not afford young students the same vectors at all and contain subjects and achievements that can be learned on your own or for self-enrichment if you have the time and money to also take those courses as well. Historically those classical educations were also for the leisured classes who had the time and wealth to indulge in them.

If I was a parent, I'd say they would be better off spending their hard-earned tuition and time in their youth getting the STEM degree for the engineering background and then work on their portfolio as a passion project through much more affordable art classes and free study of art history and classical architecture on the internet, then parlay that into an architectural field.

At least they would be able to get an internship and a job to pay the bills while they worked on artistic passions - Or they could be an art student and work at Starbucks and get a personal internship with the anomie and depression they are also learning about in their sociology and psychology classes.

This I very much agree with, which is also why I think sending a kid to university right out of high school is a risky proposition. I also think it is why they should teach more of the humanities in middle and high school, so people have a better foundation in this regard. But I will say this, if all you care about is getting a job and maybe finding a career, then STEM is the way to go. If you're looking for a little bit more out of your education, and maybe developing skills that transcend specific job requirements, or possibly set you up for a more interesting career paths, then a classical education may be up your alley. You're likely to starve early on in your life, but it may be more rewarding long term. I would also suggest that if you do want to pursue a more classical education, to maybe do so a little later on in life. Complete the STEM to get yourself established, then consider going back to school for the more classical education, when you're looking at that first transition between careers. Again, education does not have to follow the same path for all people, and that includes time lines for educating oneself. An advanced degree can come later in life, and may be driven by an interest beyond your current vocation.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

[...] STEM, STEM, STEM. SAIT, SAIT, SAIT. You are talking the difference between the architect and the draftsman. There are few architects out there, but there are ton of draftsmen. [...]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I'm not sure I agree a humanities focused classical education makes an architect. Imo that's a STEM degree.

Originally Posted by MarchHare

That's not what Lanny is saying. His point is that completing a purely STEM-focused degree will turn out a graduate who is perfectly capable of designing structures and drawing blueprints, but if you want someone to create something that is a beautiful example of both form and function, they're going to also take "useless" liberal arts courses in subjects like Art History, Philosophy, Literature, Classics, etc.

I find Lanny's anecdote pretty funny, because in my experience we have the exact opposite problem: many architects out there, but (too) few (good) draftsmen.

In fact, I'd go as far as to say we have lots of architectural grads being pumped out of universities across this country who are quite adept at the "'useless' liberal arts courses", but are also completely incapable of designing a realistic structure and crafting a good set of drawing plans.

And it's not just architecture that has this problem: I am an engineering consultant, and I see it in my own field. We have too many "book smart" engineering grads coming out of school with all the requisite courses for a CEAB-accredited degree completed, but they know #### all about how to design and build anything. Frankly I was one of them, to a degree, and as much as I came to loathe my first job out of university I did get the opportunity to learn a lot as an EIT, and for that I am (somewhat) thankful.

Overall my sentiments about this issue echo what many others have already written in this thread: over the last 50 years we've slowly but surely raised the bar on the minimum amount of education an 'employable' person 'needs' from high school to a four-year degree, because we have a glut of university grads who otherwise have no available positions in their field of study. We have shifted the universities' focus from offering a broad higher education to a select few to providing very specialized programs that often result in no appreciable improvement in a graduate's employability to just about anyone with a pulse. We're now asking our universities to do the impossible: ensure grads get well-paying jobs afterward. That's really what vocational schools were for, but those institutions are unfairly stigmatized as "lesser". I'm not sure how we solve this problem, but I think it won't really start until employers get rid of absurd minimum educational requirements.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

[...] they could be an art student and work at Starbucks and get a personal internship with the anomie and depression they are also learning about in their sociology and psychology classes.

You're a wonderful poet, Hack&Lube.

[GirlySports]

Lots of good point here but yes, the university degree has become a key to get into entry level white-collar jobs. And that's not even a guarantee. You have to find the door and then compete with other keys.

You all know I've mentioned it many times. The Accounting field is poisoned. A 4 year degree (B.Comm) to fight for a $30K job. Or work for almost free at the Big 4 for the notoriety.

It's more about resume building these days than actual work.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by timun

I find Lanny's anecdote pretty funny, because in my experience we have the exact opposite problem: many architects out there, but (too) few (good) draftsmen.

It was not a statement on the number of either roles, or people in them, it was a contrast between the types of skills expected for each, and a contrast in how they are developed. It was an allusion to try and make the contrast between the pedagogical outcomes a little more easy to understand.

[timun]

Right, I didn't mean to imply you were saying that literally we have few architects and many drafters; I know what you meant. I just thought it was an amusing anecdote, because from personal experience the reality is the opposite. And that the education of architects is such that many are only adept with the liberal arts knowledge they gained at university, and don't have enough of a "nuts and bolts" background to know how to design a building.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

That's not what Lanny is saying. His point is that completing a purely STEM-focused degree will turn out a graduate who is perfectly capable of designing structures and drawing blueprints, but if you want someone to create something that is a beautiful example of both form and function, they're going to also take "useless" liberal arts courses in subjects like Art History, Philosophy, Literature, Classics, etc.

Yeah, but what percentage of students are actually capable of doing that?

Certainly not all that going into the humanities.

It also doesn't change the fact that there is a massive manpower shortage of the STEM fields & trades, and that a lot of students are graduating post secondary and are not employable.

[blankall]

I have a BSc from the University of Victoria. I also have a Law Degree from UBC. Both programs were....inconsistent.

Major issues were that some classes were totally useless. I literally had classes in science where the final exam consisted of a dozen diagrams from the text book and the entire test was to fill in the terms. You got half marks for spelling the names of biochemical compounds wrong by 1 letter. Zero marks if you were 2 or more letters off. I instantly forgot all the information as soon as the test was over.

This was 100% a test of your memory and spelling abilities, and barely tested scientific aptitude. Overall I would say that about 30% of what I learned and did in undergrad and at law school was useful, with the rest being filler. A major issue was that many profs were either not involved at all or too personally involved and focused on their own ego and politics.

Another major issue with my post-university career was that I did not have enough writing experience. I had taken many English courses. However, they were all more focused on the subject matter and politics of the courses than the actual instruction in writing.

As for the cost and ability to choose your own courses, Canada is relatively unique in their approach. Most countries either offer little funding or have centralized control of subject matter. For example, the USA is largely private and students must pay considerably more for post-secondary education in Canada. In Sweden and Germany, post-secondary education is free, but strictly controlled by the government. The government strictly limits the number of students in each field, with the total enrolment being based on the country's labour needs.

As for the personal development aspect, do you really need an entire degree in a useless field to achieve that? Wouldn't a directed degree with a few electives sprinkled in achieve the same thing?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Yeah, you kind of missed the point. The humanities introduce a new context to the technical education you pursue. Frank Gehry credits his love for art and culture as what drove many of his design choices. It was his connection to, and love for, the humanities that made him a visionary and one of the greatest architects in history. The humanities gives us perspective a strictly technical education does not, and the benefit is seen the work produced. The same can be said for any discipline. The more well rounded you are, the better you will be in everything you take on.

I didn't miss your point, I just disagree with you. Having humanities included in any education is obviously important, but the relative weighting is a matter that can and should be debated. I suggest in many programs (including specifically architecture) more time on technical matters and less on humanities would improve outcomes both at the individual and societal level. You're free to disagree, but that doesn't mean I missed your point. Gehry's love for the humanities may have made him a great architect, but his buildings are all structurally sound as well. If they weren't nobody would be discussing his work later. You can generalize that to almost any field - visionary thought is wonderful, but it is only applicable after a strong foundation of technical basics have been achieved. And in many cases our education system fails at providing that base level knowledge.

And that really has nothing to do with the fundamental issues that are facing our system of higher education.

When the universities are asking for funding, they always say they are important contributors to students economic wellbeing and that the increased earnings of students pay society back for the cost of educating them.

But that isn't true for many programs any more, because as has been noted the average B.A. isn't providing people the classical education to be a diplomat anymore. Instead, it's providing barely literate graduates without basic reasoning skills. This is a problem of both the input (students who shouldn't be there) and of the process (providing poor quality education with underpaid/overworked sessional instructors and low standards).

Whenever anyone suggests that universities change to focus on more marketable programs, the hue and cry that it isn't about money comes to the fore. But it's coming to the point where the universities aren't going to be able to continue getting funding for degrees that fail at teaching BOTH critical thinking and specifically marketable technical skills.

Speaking personally (and acknowledging n=1 here) I took no humanities courses in university whatsoever. I do however have arguably the best humanities high school education available in Alberta (Full IB at Western Canada, higher level English/history with scores of 7/7 in both). That was a big advantage over the other engineers (mainly because I know the difference between an adverb and an adjective, not so much because I understand allusions to 'waiting for Godot', or because I comprehend the humour in 'Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead'). And that seems to have been enough for me to make a full time living as a writer with enough time to spare to argue about all sorts of things on CP during the day, which I suspect is more than a great many BA holders can say about their degrees.

So while I think the humanities should probably be part of every degree, I also think the vast majority of the money and time spent on humanities specific degrees (and most degrees in general) is probably wasted. Since a great deal of that money and time is government funded, that is a matter of public interest.

[Jason14h]

Most people would learn more on YouTube and webcasts then their years getting a BA with the quality ( and GAF ) factor of professors and quality of teachings

University is no longer a place to explore ideas and broaden your thinking ability

It is a place to take filler courses and sit in 200 person auditoriums and listen to someone read from a book ( they usually wrote )

Explain why that can’t happen online ?

[timun]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Speaking personally (and acknowledging n=1 here) I took no humanities courses in university whatsoever. I do however have arguably the best humanities high school education available in Alberta (Full IB at Western Canada, higher level English/history with scores of 7/7 in both). That was a big advantage over the other engineers (mainly because I know the difference between an adverb and an adjective, not so much because I understand allusions to 'waiting for Godot', or because I comprehend the humour in 'Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead').

I couldn't agree more that being even a little more proficient than the average engineer is a huge advantage over the rest. The average student's English skills were shockingly poor when I did my B.Sc., and I imagine they're not much better today. Many of my classmates in first year were surprised to learn that I didn't have to take an English exam to be accepted into the program (I don't remember the minimum threshold mark in English 30 anymore), and I was just as shocked to learn that they did!

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Most people would learn more on YouTube and webcasts then their years getting a BA with the quality ( and GAF ) factor of professors and quality of teachings

University is no longer a place to explore ideas and broaden your thinking ability

It is a place to take filler courses and sit in 200 person auditoriums and listen to someone read from a book ( they usually wrote )

Explain why that can’t happen online ?

This is an overt simplification of the university experience. At its best, it is a social psychological experience paralleled by almost nothing else.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by blankall

Another major issue with my post-university career was that I did not have enough writing experience.

I'm not sure what its like up in Canada, but down here in the states, it's only getting worse. One of the schools I adjunct for online has just recently changed one of their capstone classes, which was writing heavy, to a class where all content is delivered and assignments submitted through recorded voice content. This is a disturbing trend where writing skills are being shelved, because it puts too much stress on the student and creates too many opportunities for failure. Another school recently killed off remedial classes for similar reasons. To me, we're not doing these students any favors and are regressing to the lowest denominator, setting the stage for the Idiocracy prophesy to become reality.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is an overt simplification of the university experience. At its best, it is a social psychological experience paralleled by almost nothing else.

What percentage of Canada's university students/classes are getting the "at its best" version of the university experience?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

I'm not sure what its like up in Canada, but down here in the states, it's only getting worse. One of the schools I adjunct for online has just recently changed one of their capstone classes, which was writing heavy, to a class where all content is delivered and assignments submitted through recorded voice content. This is a disturbing trend where writing skills are being shelved, because it puts too much stress on the student and creates too many opportunities for failure. Another school recently killed off remedial classes for similar reasons. To me, we're not doing these students any favors and are regressing to the lowest denominator, setting the stage for the Idiocracy prophesy to become reality.

My lack of writing skills, or the lack of practice & teaching goes all the way back to high school.

Too much emphasis on theory, not enough of knowing how to write properly.

I admire everyone on here who is good at writing. Textcritic is my favorite. I don't even care what the subject matter is. I just enjoy reading his posts.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

What percentage of Canada's university students/classes are getting the "at its best" version of the university experience?

Probably 4%.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

I'm not sure what its like up in Canada, but down here in the states, it's only getting worse. One of the schools I adjunct for online has just recently changed one of their capstone classes, which was writing heavy, to a class where all content is delivered and assignments submitted through recorded voice content. This is a disturbing trend where writing skills are being shelved, because it puts too much stress on the student and creates too many opportunities for failure. Another school recently killed off remedial classes for similar reasons. To me, we're not doing these students any favors and are regressing to the lowest denominator, setting the stage for the Idiocracy prophesy to become reality.

Very bizarre.

Writing, at least the technical/professional kind, is all about practice.

To add to my point about personal fulfillment, the internet has changed the need for that. Prior to the internet is you wanted to learn about a subject you went to an encyclopedia, which typically had 1-2 paragraphs on a subject.

Now you can gain near endless information on a subject from the internet. Is a history degree as useful, when an amateur with passion for the subject can learn more in a week on YouTube?

If anything the internet has created an avenue for those with knowledge in a specific field to create themselves employment, by being the person who created the YouTube videos.

I've stated this in other threads, it's an absurdity that Canada has to import skilled laborers, but we have a vast excess of university graduates. All to do with the attitude that getting a degree makes you a better person that "blue collar" worker.
Once again, with the access to information the internet provides, you no longer need to rely on university to be "cultured".

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by you&me

Excuse my ignorance, but why not?

I had to chuckle at the suggestion of the "Women and Gender Studies" student suggesting free tuition... Like Bleeding Red, I can get behind the idea of free, or far more subsidized tuition if it leads to more productive and contributive grads... You want a fluffy degree with dead-end prospects, you should be paying full freight for it.

I think I've read that some European countries reevaluate their domestic labour markets and subsidize studies in vocations that are in demand or underrepresented... I'm not sure of the mechanics of it, but it sounds like a better use of gov't funds than a free-for-all on tuition.

You will only see massive post-secondary changes if overall enrollment drops significantly for an extended period of time, like say over five years.

The other question you must ask yourself is if any these wall-of-text-changes actually does anything for the end result. I mean people can't even agree on what the end result should be, so good luck with that.