Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 10-14-2021, 09:46 AM   #21
Lanny_McDonald
Franchise Player
 
Lanny_McDonald's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Education is a little broken everywhere, not just in Canada. Education should be non-profit and be the larger good, not fund raising and fattening endowments. The most important department in schools these days is the development offices, who are responsible for fundraising. Tells you where the focus is. It's not on educational outcomes and student success.

I just finished writing my senators and representative about the student debt issue and give them a little insight into the problems with education from an ex-XO who got fed up with the failings of the system. Schools are more intent on getting students in the door, hooked on loans, and then making sure they milk as much money out of the students as possible. The education of the student takes a back seat to making money, much of it through grants and loans students have to earn/take out. Worse, faculty spend as much time empire building as they do pushing their students to succeed, but a lot of that can be attributed to the molly codling the students get from the administration. Instructors can't push students to perform like they used to, and it is virtually impossible to fail a student, because that affects their student loan status. It's bizarre because the school wants students to take as many classes as possible (beyond their pathway) but then demand that instructors give passing grades to substandard students. The only protection instructors have is to empire build and use politics to their advantage. The system is broken, and the root cause is money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14 View Post
I have only a tiny bit to add here, but between my education at SAIT and U of C (which are directly related), I gained far more skills and technical knowledge at SAIT.

My instructors at SAIT were definetly not considered academics (with 1 exception), but when I look back at my time at both of those places, SAIT was far superior.
Those are very different types of institutions and both have very different educational outcomes. SAIT is very much a technical training school, with the mission to give you skills specific to a vocation. They are not really in the business of developing the next great critical thinkers, their job is to prep you for a job in industry and make you successful in that discipline. Universities have a very different mission. Their job is to create the next generation of thinkers and visionaries who will be change agents. Their mission is to expose you to the content in a discipline that will make you a proficient at completing research, applying critical thought and analysis to that research, and articulating the outcomes of that research. Critical thought is taught through the lens of a "school" where there is a definite focus, but you are not taught to be an expert in a vocation. It is like the difference between an architect and a draftsman. One is about vision and design, while the other is about technical specification and implementation. Students need to understand the differences so they don't come out of school with something they didn't want. You don't take electrical engineering to become an electrician.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleeding Red View Post
I'm a product of camp York with an almost useless degree in humanities.
Your degree is as useless as you make it. Humanities is a very useful degree as it opens doors across a number of industries. You were taught to think, rationalize, and approach things with higher goal in mind. Those skills are transportable to any industry.

Quote:
I have 2 kids in the post-secondary system - 1 at U of T in a specialized program (Forensics) and 1 at Ryerson (after 3 years at Seneca College).
Good schools!

Quote:
A friend of mine who is an admissions consultant (helps you get into medical/dental school) has often said that B.A. means Begin Again. I have often felt that a B.A. today is the equivalent of a high school diploma in 1950. You need one just to get your foot in the door of most jobs.
That's is their perspective because their job is to get you to take your education to the next level. They can be right depending on the industry or employer, but a B.A. is a fine degree that can lead to many great opportunities.

Quote:
I think there are a couple of ways to improve the post secondary system:

1. Make schools specialize. Why does every University have to offer a liberal arts program? Or a business program? For example, McMaster is known for it's medical school. Let it focus on science programs that lead to health care jobs and ditch the medieval-french-poetry program. Let U of C focus on becoming the preeminent Poli-sci/Law school in Western Canada and let U of A focus on Medical/Sciences programs. A whole school focus would open up spaces and cut a ton of dead weight.
Every university has a liberal arts degree because the liberal arts and humanities is what makes us human. The humanities are opportunities to learn about the things that make the naked ape the apex animal on the planet. Our ability to to think about complex matters, establish philosophies, express our thoughts and feelings in many different ways (the spoken and written word, painting and sculpture, dance, theatrical performance, comedy, etc.). The humanities are those courses that many times students will look back on and say they were their favorites from their school days because they made them think differently. Specialization is important, but understanding what makes us human, and special, is equally important to a well rounded education.

Quote:
2. Have every student spend 2 years in college as a path to University. I think QC does something like this and I think it is valuable. It gives kids time to try things out, take a variety of courses, see what is on offer in the world from real world advisors (not high in the tower academics.) Many may think that high school does this, but clearly it is not.
I agree with this to a point. College is a chance to do exploration and prepare for the baccalaureate experience. The associates degree from college is a culmination of the lower division credits required for that bachelor degree. A little idea of what path you are going to be on should be in place before you go to college. I would suggest this should be done in middle and high school. Try to find out where a student's interests are, where their skills are, and try to focus them in that direction. Greater exploration of possible careers should be done before college so time and money is not wasted. Having said that, I get where you're coming from. But people change careers multiple times in their lives, and giving them skills that traverse the limits or boundaries of one profession to another is usually the best approach to general education. If you are dead set on what you want to do for the rest of your life, then those vocational schools are probably the best fit.

Quote:
3. End tenure. That tenured prof in 17th century poetry cost the university over $100 K whether he teaches or not. Paid sabbaticals, indexed pensions, teach one class, summers off. If less than 25 students are taking your class on the comparative religions of Peru, then you are out.
What you're suggesting is exactly why tenure exists. Tenure is the job security that is needed to make sure that some of these less popular programs keep going and keep those schools alive. Tenure also protects teachers from the whims of the administration. Tenure is an important factor in education and it just can't be killed off. Otherwise, schools are then allowed to use nothing but adjuncts, and that is no way to run a school. Imagine running your business that relies on highly trained and skilled people, but doing so with only part-time employees? Think you would be successful?

Quote:
4. Increase tuition in certain programs. Want a BA in some SJW program, pay more for it. Want a diploma in non-profit charity organization management, pay less. Looking for a degree in literature, pay more. joining a health care/geriatric program, pay less.
Tuition is already more expensive for some programs. Those with costly equipment and lab requirements are more expensive to take than others. I'm just curious who gets to determine the tuition in your scenario?

Quote:
5. Partner with companies/departments that have job openings. Like an apprenticeship program. Sign manufactures need people, partner with a small university (U of Lethbridge) for a degree in design and marketing and get a job.
Many schools already do this.

Quote:
Just my 2 (OK, 25) cents. Sorry for the long post.
Some good suggestions and some stuff that is already happening. I think it is also important that people understand how the educational systems work and how schools are run. You can't make broad sweeping changes when the systems are set up so differently. College is different from university which is different from a technical school which is different from direct vocational training. Then you get into private versus public and the various funding models. Each situation is different. There is no single solution to the problem because the systems are so complex.
Lanny_McDonald is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Old 10-14-2021, 09:49 AM   #22
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach View Post
It would be very different. Lots of digital lessons combined with hands on applied learning and earlier availability to specialize for kids that show early signs of strong interest/aptitude.

I’d like to see a stronger emphasis on learning languages in this country. We don’t think French is useful but 1/3 of the world speaks French. Our population is quickly becoming incredibly heterogenous learning the languages of the larger groups (mandarin, Punjabi, Farsi, etc..) I think we are dumb not to embrace these things.
Just curious where you got that from. The internet tells me it's less than 300 million. You're suggesting ~2.6 billion.
Fuzz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2021, 09:56 AM   #23
peter12
Franchise Player
 
peter12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Exp:
Default

I’m part of the maybe 4% of students who actually got something out of a liberal arts education.

The real problem with universities is that they have just become giant engines for fundraising.

EDIT: Just read Lanny’s post and it’s exactly true to my experience.
peter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2021, 10:00 AM   #24
bizaro86
Franchise Player
 
bizaro86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach View Post
It would be very different. Lots of digital lessons combined with hands on applied learning and earlier availability to specialize for kids that show early signs of strong interest/aptitude.

I’d like to see a stronger emphasis on learning languages in this country. We don’t think French is useful but 1/3 of the world speaks French. Our population is quickly becoming incredibly heterogenous learning the languages of the larger groups (mandarin, Punjabi, Farsi, etc..) I think we are dumb not to embrace these things.
Nope, not even close to that. 1/3 is 33%. French is more like 3.3% (ie 1/33)

Sources:
https://www.lingoda.com/en/content/f...ing-countries/

https://www.worldometers.info/world-...%20the%20world.

I don't disagree with your basic point, and my kids are learning Spanish (with no heritage background in the language). But French is about one tenth as common/useful as your claim.
bizaro86 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to bizaro86 For This Useful Post:
Old 10-14-2021, 10:02 AM   #25
CorsiHockeyLeague
Franchise Player
 
CorsiHockeyLeague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12 View Post
I’m part of the maybe 4% of students who actually got something out of a liberal arts education.
I got plenty out of my liberal arts education, including some skills that are applicable to my work. But I would say most of the benefit I got out of it doesn't really have anything to do with my ability to do my job - it's just "quality of life" stuff.

In general though your 4% number doesn't sound crazy to me as an estimate, based on what I saw from a lot of the people I went to school with.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
CorsiHockeyLeague is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Old 10-14-2021, 10:10 AM   #26
Coach
Franchise Player
 
Coach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Vancouver
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bizaro86 View Post
Nope, not even close to that. 1/3 is 33%. French is more like 3.3% (ie 1/33)

Sources:
https://www.lingoda.com/en/content/f...ing-countries/

https://www.worldometers.info/world-...%20the%20world.

I don't disagree with your basic point, and my kids are learning Spanish (with no heritage background in the language). But French is about one tenth as common/useful as your claim.
Oh strange. For some reason I thought it was way higher. Obviously my Canadian education gave me little background into other languages, and I took French to grade 12! . I do think French is more useful in places people may not realize (a lot of Africa, for instance).

Yeah, either way, my point is if you travel, most other places people speak multiple languages and I think we should be making a better effort as the world (particularly the "East") gets closer.
__________________
Coach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2021, 10:17 AM   #27
bizaro86
Franchise Player
 
bizaro86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach View Post
Oh strange. For some reason I thought it was way higher. Obviously my Canadian education gave me little background into other languages, and I took French to grade 12! . I do think French is more useful in places people may not realize (a lot of Africa, for instance).

Yeah, either way, my point is if you travel, most other places people speak multiple languages and I think we should be making a better effort as the world (particularly the "East") gets closer.
That's a pretty common misconception in Canada, imo. If I was rating languages by global usefulness I'd go something like:

English
Mandarin Chinese
<big gap>
Spanish
Cantonese
Arabic
<big gap>
Russian
French
Japanese
Korean
Farsi
Turkish
etc.

We picked Spanish for our kids because I think it's way more likely they'll end up completely fluent vs trying to learn Chinese. They already have great accents. It's quite interesting how aggressive other parents are (even those whose kids aren't learning a language) about how French is obviously better and more important.
bizaro86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2021, 10:19 AM   #28
CorsiHockeyLeague
Franchise Player
 
CorsiHockeyLeague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

I actually wish I'd learned Japanese just for cultural reasons. So much good stuff I'd like to be able to watch or play without needing the subtitles, or read period. Maybe if I ever have a breakdown and quit my job and spend a year or two away from civilization I'll give it a shot.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
CorsiHockeyLeague is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Old 10-14-2021, 10:19 AM   #29
DoubleF
Franchise Player
 
DoubleF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by you&me View Post
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.
Yeah, I'm a little confused by some of the resistance. Quite a bit of what was mentioned in that post is stuff that already existed in some form, albeit, not as described by Bleeding Red. Those who went through MRC and SAIT would have glimpsed quite a bit of it.

I recall MRC and SAIT indirectly incentivizing certain subjects that were more in demand. There used to be corporate subsidized events for certain programs. Bookstore coupons for textbooks handed out like candy at business program events. Lots of corporate events for scouting candidates outside of meet and greet events. The registrar would also keep tabs on certain subject scholarships and notify pools of students near graduation to apply for them.

MRC and SAIT also would do many projects that collaborated with industry ranging from training, manufacturing etc. This happened especially during the Olympics. It allowed students an inside track to see what it was like to apply their degree towards a real world job, but also allowed corporations to scout the best that the institutions had to offer.

MRC had small class sizes and frequently culled courses that weren't highly sought after and reallocated resources to put towards more industry demanded courses. I heard SAIT was the same.

I wouldn't select certain subjects to increase tuition on. I'd increase it across the board and increase incentives for certain subjects via industry matched subsidies (ie: scholarships). I'd also put in an emphasis and heavy incentives on students minoring in another category (ie: social science minor). This wouldn't completely cull things like sociology, psychology, linguistics etc. which IMO are quite important tools in many business applications, but would help students to better expand their thought horizons without the bull#### "GPA booster" courses like African drum theory or "Rocks for jocks" geology courses. Nothing against these courses, but I do dislike the concept of GPA booster "useless" courses.

Too many people these days only know what they were taught and have little interest in things outside of their direct specialization. That hurts the industries as a whole creating horrific echo chambers and toxic frat mentalities that on occasion permeate throughout the industry. People constantly reinventing things, when in reality they could hop over to a different subject and innovate that knowledge into better functioning tools for their jobs. Everything is connected. HR with a minor in sociology and psychology helps. HR with numbers background helps. Swap HR with marketing. It's valuable.

One of my buddies is a double major nano-technology and BComm. Absolutely brilliant but also she constantly adapts her science knowledge in her business related work. I find social sciences extremely valuable when combined with other strands of knowledge. It's a catalyst. I find it useless when left as a stand alone concept. I think lots of HR and marketing professionals would be benefitted knowing about gender studies or religious studies. But as a stand alone, I don't pity them for ending up as SJW working minimum wage jobs, because they don't have an appropriate outlet to utilize that information correctly.

When I was in school, I had no idea what to do. My dad told me to take a subject category that should help me at least find a job that paid $30-50 an hour (at the time around 5-10x minimum wage) to at least pay off student loans. After that he said, I could take whatever I wanted as a hobby. I took that to heart. I took courses I had interest in, not for the GPA boosting. I minored in a social sciences and finished with a BComm. I still use the social sciences knowledge I learned to this day, but the BComm is obviously more valuable. I also find that my job enjoyment is higher when applying my social science interest in my work.

I have a significant annoyance with how some of the BComm is taught in school. It's spurred an interest in me to design and improve training materials at my firm as a CPA. It has also spurred an interest of mine into exploring academia. Lots of the entry level accounting is badly taught causing many good candidates to walk away, but also many who continue in accounting to start their knowledge on a weaker understanding than necessary. I've chatted with many in a variety of industries. Many students are not well equipped to enter the work force mentality wise and knowledge wise. We try to bridge this with co-op terms, but in reality, an overhaul of the BComm teaching approach should be done instead.
DoubleF is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2021, 10:20 AM   #30
MarchHare
Franchise Player
 
MarchHare's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

The problem with universities, if there is one, is that too many people in today's society confuse them with vocational schools and think the purpose of higher education should be to prepare students for a specific career. In the 1000+ years that universities have existed, that's only been a recent phenomenon in the last few decades. Prior to that, it was understood that universities developed well-rounded academic thinkers.

About 90 years ago, my grandfather completed a Master's degree from Cambridge with what many posters here would describe as a "useless" liberal arts degree in ancient Greek and Latin. Outside of academia, what kind of job does that prepare him for? And yet he enjoyed a very successful and varied career working for the British government, management positions in the private sector, and serving on the boards of several non-profits. Until relatively recently, it was understood that a university degree -- any degree -- was demonstrable proof that the graduate had developed solid critical thinking, research, and writing skills and had a well-rounded education in a wide variety of subject areas. This was very highly valued by employers.

If you belong to the Boomer generation (when a much lower percentage of the population attained post-secondary degrees), it was typical that almost every university graduate would be actively recruited right out of school and fast-tracked into management positions. University graduates were seen as the future leaders in every organization. Seeing the career trajectories of university graduates vs. non-graduates, many Baby Boomers pushed their children into universities whether they belonged there or not, creating a huge glut of university grads and watering down the value of a degree. Most jobs shouldn't require undergraduate (or higher) degrees, but that was seen as the best road to career success. So now we have a situation where degrees are undervalued because too many people have them. Entry level jobs that required only a high school education 40 years ago now require a bachelor's degree (often in a very specific subject) for no legitimate reason other than employers can make that a requirement and still attract enough suitable applicants. At the same time, there's this widespread attitude that an academic education should substitute for job-specific vocational training, and any degrees outside of a select few subjects with a direct career path (STEM fields, engineering, business, medicine, law, etc.) are looked down upon as undesirable. That was never the purpose of universities.

Last edited by MarchHare; 10-14-2021 at 10:24 AM.
MarchHare is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2021, 10:35 AM   #31
Johnny Makarov
Franchise Player
 
Johnny Makarov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bizaro86 View Post
That's a pretty common misconception in Canada, imo. If I was rating languages by global usefulness I'd go something like:

English
Mandarin Chinese
<big gap>
Spanish
Cantonese
Arabic
<big gap>
Russian
French
Japanese
Korean
Farsi
Turkish
etc.

We picked Spanish for our kids because I think it's way more likely they'll end up completely fluent vs trying to learn Chinese. They already have great accents. It's quite interesting how aggressive other parents are (even those whose kids aren't learning a language) about how French is obviously better and more important.
As a fluent Cantonese speaker it's definitely at the bottom of your list. It's prob a dying language. Cantonese classes at chinese school where my kids attend have been halved in the past 6 years.

Plus it might be the only language where a portion of the speaking and writing of it uses different words. Also with 8 tones it's way harder to speak it fluently.
__________________
Peter12 "I'm no Trump fan but he is smarter than most if not everyone in this thread. ”
Johnny Makarov is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Johnny Makarov For This Useful Post:
Old 10-14-2021, 10:44 AM   #32
bizaro86
Franchise Player
 
bizaro86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchHare View Post
In the 1000+ years that universities have existed, that's only been a recent phenomenon in the last few decades. Prior to that, it was understood that universities developed well-rounded academic thinkers.
That's great, but probably it isn't appropriate for the 50% plus of young people who go to university. Presumably that's why the article I opened with commented that functional illiteracy is still an issue with university students, and why they are talking about issues with learning critical thinking.

Should the academic/political/business decision makers have well rounded liberal educations - I think so. But that's a pretty small subset of the population. I'm skeptical that ancient Greek adds much value to someone who ends up working a clerical/retail/food service job.
bizaro86 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to bizaro86 For This Useful Post:
Old 10-14-2021, 10:46 AM   #33
bizaro86
Franchise Player
 
bizaro86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov View Post
As a fluent Cantonese speaker it's definitely at the bottom of your list. It's prob a dying language. Cantonese classes at chinese school where my kids attend have been halved in the past 6 years.

Plus it might be the only language where a portion of the speaking and writing of it uses different words. Also with 8 tones it's way harder to speak it fluently.
Fair point. If I was picking Chinese for my kids (as a non-Chinese person) I would absolutely have had them learn Mandarin not Cantonese or any other version. Could probably just take it off or move it to the bottom group (which has tons of other languages of similar utility that I didn't list).
bizaro86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2021, 10:54 AM   #34
GordonBlue
Franchise Player
 
GordonBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Alberta
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald View Post
Education is a little broken everywhere, not just in Canada. Education should be non-profit and be the larger good, not fund raising and fattening endowments. The most important department in schools these days is the development offices, who are responsible for fundraising. Tells you where the focus is. It's not on educational outcomes and student success.
you've raised a lot of good points.
but I would argue about your comments on fundraising.

Canadian schools are not like the schools in the states that have multi billion dollar endowments they're sitting on.
Most of the fundraising I see is to get enough money to account for the cuts from the government so you can keep the doors open, and maintain the facilities you have.

Government funding and tuition are not enough to operate post secondary in Canada.
GordonBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2021, 10:59 AM   #35
Lanny_McDonald
Franchise Player
 
Lanny_McDonald's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bizaro86 View Post
I'm skeptical that ancient Greek adds much value to someone who ends up working a clerical/retail/food service job.
If that is their career of choice, or their aspirations, those people likely shouldn't be going to university. That would be an incredible waste of money. But if someone who is highly motivated and capable of applying their lessons in any context, a classical education is never a wrong path to follow. That classical education will help them climb the ladder quicker and result in greater gains for them. Education is for everyone, but a classical education is not for everyone. Some people are better off going to a tech school because of the structure and regimentation the modality and pedagogy relies upon.
Lanny_McDonald is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Old 10-14-2021, 11:04 AM   #36
Azure
Had an idea!
 
Azure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by you&me View Post
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.
The private sector in Europe is also more likely to pay for tuition in a technical field, and then offer you a job once you graduate.

Often times training is done onsite in combination with a post secondary institution.

We need more focus on STEM & the trades. There is a lot of work out there, and we are not training Canadians to fill the roles.
Azure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2021, 11:06 AM   #37
Lanny_McDonald
Franchise Player
 
Lanny_McDonald's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GordonBlue View Post
you've raised a lot of good points.
but I would argue about your comments on fundraising.

Canadian schools are not like the schools in the states that have multi billion dollar endowments they're sitting on.
Most of the fundraising I see is to get enough money to account for the cuts from the government so you can keep the doors open, and maintain the facilities you have.

Government funding and tuition are not enough to operate post secondary in Canada.
Those are the same excuses used for fund raising efforts in the states as well. Not all schools are that well endowed.

Lanny_McDonald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2021, 11:17 AM   #38
CliffFletcher
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchHare View Post
The problem with universities, if there is one, is that too many people in today's society confuse them with vocational schools and think the purpose of higher education should be to prepare students for a specific career. In the 1000+ years that universities have existed, that's only been a recent phenomenon in the last few decades. Prior to that, it was understood that universities developed well-rounded academic thinkers.

About 90 years ago, my grandfather completed a Master's degree from Cambridge with what many posters here would describe as a "useless" liberal arts degree in ancient Greek and Latin. Outside of academia, what kind of job does that prepare him for? And yet he enjoyed a very successful and varied career working for the British government, management positions in the private sector, and serving on the boards of several non-profits. Until relatively recently, it was understood that a university degree -- any degree -- was demonstrable proof that the graduate had developed solid critical thinking, research, and writing skills and had a well-rounded education in a wide variety of subject areas. This was very highly valued by employers…
All true. But there’s no going back to a world where only 5-10 per cent of people go to university, they all study Socrates, Shakespeare, the basics of biology and finance, and how to write grammatically and rhetorically perfect papers, and then are immediately swept up into the economic and cultural elite upon graduation.

Can you imagine the public outcry if entrance requirements were dramatically tightened? Parents and students would go ballistic. High school would have to become far more rigorous, and students graded much more severely. Our secondary education is moving the opposite direction, with streaming abandoned and academic rigour relaxed in the name of equality.

Businesses today simply aren’t set up to train new employees. They don’t have the skill or processes in place. And they - with good reason - don’t expect those employees who they might invest heavily on training will stick around long enough to make the investment worthwhile. For better or worse, we no longer live in a world where people stay with the same employer for 20 or even 10 years.

And universities themselves can’t seem to come up with a better way to grapple with budget woes than unrelenting expansion and increased enrolment. What problem did the transformation of MRC to MRU solve? Students now go to school for twice as long and pay twice as much, but their degrees are no higher value than before. As someone on the hiring side, graduates are no more better prepared for their roles. I can’t see any benefit besides increased prestige, money, and jobs for MRU administration and staff.

Post-secondary education needs to be disrupted. Dramatically and fundamentally disrupted by external forces. Because the status quo is one of the starkest examples of an institution widely recognized as inadequate and dysfunctional, but seemingly incapable of self-reform.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze View Post
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.

Last edited by CliffFletcher; 10-14-2021 at 12:46 PM.
CliffFletcher is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Old 10-14-2021, 11:41 AM   #39
bizaro86
Franchise Player
 
bizaro86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald View Post
If that is their career of choice, or their aspirations, those people likely shouldn't be going to university. That would be an incredible waste of money. But if someone who is highly motivated and capable of applying their lessons in any context, a classical education is never a wrong path to follow. That classical education will help them climb the ladder quicker and result in greater gains for them. Education is for everyone, but a classical education is not for everyone. Some people are better off going to a tech school because of the structure and regimentation the modality and pedagogy relies upon.
For sure, I agree with all of that.

I just think that statistically the number of people pursuing a traditional university education (ie non professional field) is so high that it is almost certainly inappropriate for a good chunk of them.
bizaro86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2021, 12:01 PM   #40
RichieRich
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Exp:
Default

Universities have become rather elite-oriented too. Both in terms of how exceptionally high the grades of applicants need to be. Makes it more academic oriented (ie high school Uber nerds, many of which actually have some social and/or communication challenges). I see this repeatedly in many new grads in STEM. Secondly… the cost has resulted in many being unable to sustain 4+ years of payments and marginal income. These two items have also resulted in a lower number of older students going (back) into post secondary.

As a parent it’s logical for me to encourage youth to pursue “useful” education. For years I pushed the trades-oriented / SAIT approach and took flack for it. By useful I mean many things such as: interesting and engaging to the student; an actual current day market for those skills; a future for the skills that evolve into a career; having the chance at a reasonable work life balance; and of course a reasonable wage soon after graduating/completion that has lots of head room.
RichieRich is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:54 PM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021