OK, I understand where you're coming from but I think it's an overly cynical viewpoint (though perhaps no more so than...). The problem with that simplistic view is that full professors tend to teach the lecture sessions, where slave-labor TAs (or perhaps PhD candidate instructors for the higher numbers in the catalog) teach the smaller classes. BTW, the only way I got through organic chem was that I took a section with smaller classes taught by a TA. She was a better teacher than the full professor (though it was contrary to the point of the class - to flunk out a quarter of the class).
if > >>>>>> you think vocational education should be a safety net for stud ents who
ocess of learning vocational skills is more immediately rewarding than that of acquiring academic skills.
e
w,
ody
f
ciates Degree. Most of the technology degrees, mechanical, chemical, electr ical, medical laboratory, fire science, horticultural/agricultural, compute r networks, nursing, etc...endless list, are two year associate degrees. Th e more traditional vocational programs like carpentry, plumbing, welding, e lectrician training, drafting, masonry...etc...award certificates, not degr ees. Quite a few of these fields require some sort of final certification t esting at the national level to obtain employment or be licensed to work if required at the local level.At any rate, many of these programs provide th e backbone workers for industry and you don't want them to be a bunch of dr opouts who couldn't hack the remedial courses of a four year college or eve n to be perceived as such.
riety of reasons. Lumping them together as "a bunch of dropouts" isn't a pr oductive point of view.
e he kept on getting fascinated by aspects of the stuff he was studying tha t he didn't need to know to pass his exams. He was brilliant enough to get a degree eventually - though it took him quite a while - and he eventually invented and patented a better confocal microscope and - somewhat later - g ot a few million dollars for it.
t be good at and what kind of scheme of instruction might best develop thei r skills in the areas where they look promising.
hey can learn a lot about what they might be good at in the process, but 30 % never make it - or that seems to be the Australian figure
e
e
t
The students that "perform best" in university education are those that do what their instructors want them to. This hasn't got a lot to do with the k ind of behaviour that will make them useful in their later careers, so the re isn't as much "fairness" in it as one would like.
An "Einstein level genius" does stuff that his instructors, and later, empl oyers don't understand and can't see the point of until the genius has got the ideas into a state that lets them become explicable.
And Einstein's general relativity wasn't easily explicable to all that many people when he worked it out, and still isn't comprehensible to many of th e people who post here.
The paradox of University education is that it works best for the people wh o need it least, and the people who do well at university are those who tak e the instructors more seriously than those who are getting the most out of them.
You can, but krw, Jim Thompson and John Larkin obviously didn't get the ide a that those skills should also be used outside of your professional life.
My feeling is that critical thinking skills have to be suppressed whenever your instructor starts spouting nonsense, and stay suppressed when you repr oduce the same nonsense in your term papers and your end-of-course exams. P art of university education seems to be in suppressing critical thinking sk ills in places where they won't be appreciated. Some people appear to over- learn that lesson.
Perhaps. But its more that Rubio and Cruz wouldn't be the leading establish ment candidates - they are such right-wing lunatics that even Donald Trump looks more attractive, precisely and only because he's not strait-jacketed by the establishment.
On Saturday, February 27, 2016 at 8:19:48 PM UTC-5, snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote :
r your instructor starts spouting nonsense, and stay suppressed when you re produce the same nonsense in your term papers and your end-of-course exams. Part of university education seems to be in suppressing critical thinking skills in places where they won't be appreciated. Some people appear to ove r-learn that lesson.
The better universities encourage the development of critical thinking skil ls. I never had an instructor spout any nonsense.
Perhaps the schools are partly to blame there, though personal responsibility- check out the job market before signing up..
I was at a meeting with some folks from NGOs last week (Warchild, a Catholic charity Development and Peace and World Animal Protection), and - they commented that not that long ago no Universities had programs in sustainable development and that sort of thing. Now they go on campus looking for volunteers and get CVs from kids hoping to make their livelihood from doing that stuff.
I remember running into young lady when CSI was big who wanted to be a forensic entomologist.. a quick google search indicates there are a total of 10-20 cases per year in Canada that require such services, so it's more of a part time consulting gig for a University professor than a full time job. Maybe if she moved to Honduras or the southern US where unsolved random murders and insects are more plentiful.
--sp
--
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
Amazon link for AoE 3rd Edition: http://tinyurl.com/ntrpwu8
ver your instructor starts spouting nonsense, and stay suppressed when you reproduce the same nonsense in your term papers and your end-of-course exam s. Part of university education seems to be in suppressing critical thinkin g skills in places where they won't be appreciated. Some people appear to o ver-learn that lesson.
ills. I never had an instructor spout any nonsense.
Not that you noticed. Your critical thinking skills - as shown here - aren' t all that impressive.
James Arthur was taught non-Keynesian economics when he was at university a nd has never realised that it's nonsense.
Hillary isn't a clown car disaster on the Trump level. She is a perfectly respectable conventional politician, if you respect conventional politicians. Put her up against anybody even vaguely inspirational, and she isn't going to do well - as in her earlier run against Obama for the Democratic nomination, and she's not beating Sanders all that dramatically either - but she knows what it's all about.
Trump hasn't got a clue. He's doing well because anybody demented enough to appeal to the Republican right-wing is a card-carrying psychopath, and he's merely a narcissist egomaniac, clearly the lesser evil.
Kenneth Starr decided that there wasn't actually anything there that he could use to smear the Clintons.
It wasn't actually "illicit" but the bureaucrats would have been happier if she'd done things differently.
Partisan commentators do like to draw attention to both situations, but if there was anything in either of them that justified actual prosecution, it would have happened already. You should have been able to work this out for yourself.
That and I went to one of the better universities. I expect the better universities still promote critical thinking and do not have instructors that spout nonsense.
Just remember what that says about you. I am more intelligent than you. Went to a better university than you, kept a job longer than you , and am richer than you.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.