The great University con

[mathematics]

3 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

I think it's a shame that our careerist culture has turned education into something we do purely to get a better job and make more money. What about learning in order to learn?

I went to uni at 18 and I wish I'd waited till I was older because I didn't appreciate the opportunity at the time. It's an incredible opportunity to get to dedicate your time to going to lectures by genuine experts on a topic and be directed in your reading and discussion on the topic. What an unbelievable thing to get to spend your time doing. I'd love to be able to go back and do it again now as a proper adult and not as a stupid immature wean.

I studied politics, history and languages at uni and they're all topics that I still have a genuine interest in. I regularly return to the books I read at uni and I enjoy talking about them with like-minded people. The chance to learn is a wonderful thing and it's a shame that we use it simply as a stepping-stone to wealth.

If only there were more like you.

[invergowrie arab]

2 minutes ago, coprolite said:

Half assed job of change management in any industry? 

Why not try Mcinsey? 

Im holding out for the NHS

[D.A.F.C]

You seem to suggest that social skills and networking ability are kind of cheats or shortcuts. For higher level jobs these are the skills required. 
Being really good at the job at a given level is great and people should take pride in their work, but it won't get you promoted to the next level. 
I don't think a degree means that graduates will always do all jobs better than non graduates. In the real world though, having a degree usually helps if you want career advancement. So it doesn't matter if we think it should make a difference or not. 
Personally I think my degree helps me in my job, but probably overall I wasted time at University. I did do a superhuman amount of fannying about, changing courses and repeating years though. I think it would have been well worth 3 years starting at 18.

I think they are a lazy way of getting ahead.
Theres something inside people that says this is hard I'm going to act like a fake person and pretend to love other peoples interests who are important to me and kiss up to them and kick down my colleagues lower than me.
Oh hi boss did you have a great weekend oh you'll never guess what bob did last week that guys useless.
Meanwhile bob is busy grafting with no thought than working hard for the company.

[coprolite]

6 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

I think it's a shame that our careerist culture has turned education into something we do purely to get a better job and make more money. What about learning in order to learn?

I went to uni at 18 and I wish I'd waited till I was older because I didn't appreciate the opportunity at the time. It's an incredible opportunity to get to dedicate your time to going to lectures by genuine experts on a topic and be directed in your reading and discussion on the topic. What an unbelievable thing to get to spend your time doing. I'd love to be able to go back and do it again now as a proper adult and not as a stupid immature wean.

I studied politics, history and languages at uni and they're all topics that I still have a genuine interest in. I regularly return to the books I read at uni and I enjoy talking about them with like-minded people. The chance to learn is a wonderful thing and it's a shame that we use it simply as a stepping-stone to wealth.

 I don't think education has been turned into a career step.

Undergraduate university courses may be affected in this way but they are not the sum total of education. 

I love learning. 

I don't expect public funding for my hobbies though. 

The country needs more scientists, engineers, doctors, skilled tradespeople etc. Very happy for my taxes to pay for that. 

Less so to pay for some dilettante who can't pick a subject to focus on to study three useless bits for dinner party conversation material. No offence likes. 

 

[coprolite]

9 minutes ago, D.A.F.C said:

I think they are a lazy way of getting ahead.
Theres something inside people that says this is hard I'm going to act like a fake person and pretend to love other peoples interests who are important to me and kiss up to them and kick down my colleagues lower than me.
Oh hi boss did you have a great weekend oh you'll never guess what bob did last week that guys useless.
Meanwhile bob is busy grafting with no thought than working hard for the company.

I didn't advocate putting other people down now did I? 

If Bob's company works like that then Bob's a moron for grafting for it. Bob needs to learn to play the game and stop whining like a Hibs fan about how only he does it the right way.

[SweeperDee]

I'm employed with the NHS through my Masters so, not a con.

[Fraser Fyvie]

Employment is a con tbh. If people were taught how to invest wisely from a young age nobody would be working in their 40s and 50s. 

[SweeperDee]

1 minute ago, Fraser Fyvie said:

Employment is a con tbh. If people were taught how to invest wisely from a young age nobody would be working in their 40s and 50s. 

You're an advocate of having an entire middle-age demographic turning into discount Jordan Belforts? 

[Guest JTS98]

14 minutes ago, coprolite said:

I don't expect public funding for my hobbies though. 

The country needs more scientists, engineers, doctors, skilled tradespeople etc. Very happy for my taxes to pay for that. 

Less so to pay for some dilettante who can't pick a subject to focus on to study three useless bits for dinner party conversation material. No offence likes. 

 

Not offended in the slightest.

Studying things like politics and history involves analysis of information and analysis of sources. It involves looking for patterns and identifying bias. It involves learning sound judgement in the face of conflicting evidence.

These are not 'useless bits for dinner party conversation'. These are skills for life that it would greatly benefit society to see more people possess.

People who have never studied them tend to think of arts or social science subjects as being about learning trivia. It's nothing to do with that. It's learning about thinking. I don't think that's useless.

[Fraser Fyvie]

4 minutes ago, SweeperDee said:

You're an advocate of having an entire middle-age demographic turning into discount Jordan Belforts? 

I'm an advocate of not being dependent on a monthly paycheck and answering to a boss 40 hours a week. Whatever makes you happy though.

[invergowrie arab]

31 minutes ago, D.A.F.C said:

I think they are a lazy way of getting ahead.
Theres something inside people that says this is hard I'm going to act like a fake person and pretend to love other peoples interests who are important to me and kiss up to them and kick down my colleagues lower than me.
Oh hi boss did you have a great weekend oh you'll never guess what bob did last week that guys useless.
Meanwhile bob is busy grafting with no thought than working hard for the company.

Sounds like you are where the company needs you to be. Hard working grafter at the coal face.

You probably wouldnt like management.

 

[coprolite]

42 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

Not offended in the slightest.

Studying things like politics and history involves analysis of information and analysis of sources. It involves looking for patterns and identifying bias. It involves learning sound judgement in the face of conflicting evidence.

These are not 'useless bits for dinner party conversation'. These are skills for life that it would greatly benefit society to see more people possess.

People who have never studied them tend to think of arts or social science subjects as being about learning trivia. It's nothing to do with that. It's learning about thinking. I don't think that's useless.

Dammit. I was trying to offend you. 

You offended me you see. By implying that people who choose degrees for career value don't value education as highly as you do. 

You can learn thinking while learning useful information too. 

I don't think that the social sciences are completely useless. I do think that the numbers are wrong on the undergraduate courses. At Embra in the 90s I was as likely to run into a History of Arts student as a Biotechnology one. 

In a world of scarce public resources I think that a more utilitarian subject choice by more undergraduates would benefit society more than the current set up. 

I also think that your concept of education as a private good rather than as a public facility enables the argument that "consumers" of that good should pay. I'm sure you'll recognise the ideological bias behind this view. 

Incidentally my subject would be viewed by many natural scientists as a social science or humanity. I took it because I thought it would help get a 9-5 job. As a consequence I no longer work in catering and have more leisure time. I try to spend half of my leisure on self education, although the PlayStation and/or pub and/or wife often disagree. 

[Guest JTS98]

12 minutes ago, coprolite said:

Dammit. I was trying to offend you. 

1) You offended me you see. By implying that people who choose degrees for career value don't value education as highly as you do. 

2)You can learn thinking while learning useful information too. 

I don't think that the social sciences are completely useless. I do think that the numbers are wrong on the undergraduate courses. At Embra in the 90s I was as likely to run into a History of Arts student as a Biotechnology one. 

3) In a world of scarce public resources I think that a more utilitarian subject choice by more undergraduates would benefit society more than the current set up. 

4) I also think that your concept of education as a private good rather than as a public facility enables the argument that "consumers" of that good should pay. I'm sure you'll recognise the ideological bias behind this view. 

Incidentally my subject would be viewed by many natural scientists as a social science or humanity. I took it because I thought it would help get a 9-5 job. As a consequence I no longer work in catering and have more leisure time. I try to spend half of my leisure on self education, although the PlayStation and/or pub and/or wife often disagree. 

1) My point was not that there is no use for that, more that I feel the pendulum has swung too far in that direction. Studying to get a job or a promotion or whatever is fair enough. We all do it. My problem is that it seems that education is now just seen as a means to a career end rather than a public good, which it is.

We've seen plenty of examples in recent years of situations where the public good would be better served by a well-educated public who had good skills of analysis. An educated society is a better society, in my view. But there is also room for learning as fun and for its own sake.

2) I don't doubt it and never disputed it.

3) I'd argue that the skills learned in arts and social science subjects are utilitarian. The world would be better if people were more adept at picking out bullshit in their daily lives. People would shop smarter and be better off if they understood how businesses manipulate information and language. People would ask more intelligent and pertinent questions of their politicians if they were better at identifying their biases and their true angles. People would be less gullible in the face of nonsense in the media or attention grabbing 'studies' if they were better at identifying the value of a source and a source's motivation. These are simple skills that would help daily life and the bigger picture.

One thing that regularly sticks out for me in public discourse is how common it is for people to utterly fail to question the motivation of a source. I think this is one of the biggest problems in public life today. People don't know not only how to question a source, but to actually question a source at all.

4) See point 3 for the ideology point. But I do not think education should be charged and I do not believe there is any reason for it to be a charged service. There's plenty of money to go around, we just choose not to spend it on education in large enough quantities to make it available to all. I think we should.

Edited August 24, 2019 by JTS98

[coprolite]

6 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

1) My point was not that there is no use for that, more that I feel the pendulum has swung too far in that direction. Studying to get a job or a promotion or whatever is fair enough. We all do it. My problem is that it seems that education is now just seen as a means to a career end rather than a public good, which it is.

We've seen plenty of examples in recent years of situations where the public good would be better served by a well-educated public who had good skills of analysis. An educated society is a better society, in my view. But there is also room for learning as fun and for its own sake.

2) I don't doubt it and never disputed it.

3) I'd argue that the skills learned in arts and social science subjects are utilitarian. The world would be better if people were more adept at picking out bullshit in their daily lives. People would shop smarter and be better off if they understood how businesses manipulate information and language. People would ask more intelligent and pertinent questions of their politicians if they were better at identifying their biases and their true angles. People would be less gullible in the face of nonsense in the media or attention grabbing 'studies' if they were better at identifying the value of a source and a source's motivation. These are simple skills that would help daily life and the bigger picture.

One thing that regularly sticks out for me in public discourse is how common it is for people to utterly fail to question the motivation of a source. I think this is one of the biggest problems in public life today. People don't know not only how to question a source, but to actually question a source at all.

4) See point 3 for the ideology point. But I do not think education should be charged and I do not believe there is any reason for it to be a charged service. There's plenty of money to go around, we just choose not to spend it on education in large enough quantities to make it available to all. I think we should.

I see your points but don't fully agree. 

What does seem inconsistent is that some people think that uni is too career focused, whereas others think that graduates have inadequate practical skills. 

I suppose both can be right. 

[Granny Danger]

I don’t see how any education could be classed as useless, except by those who would prefer to have an uneducated populace.

[Guest JTS98]

33 minutes ago, coprolite said:

I see your points but don't fully agree. 

What does seem inconsistent is that some people think that uni is too career focused, whereas others think that graduates have inadequate practical skills. 

I suppose both can be right. 

It comes back again to my initial objection. I don't think education should be seen so heavily through the prism of a career or the economy. That's not all life is.

I think we could also look backwards at the idea that universities don't provide the skills that employers want. What are those skills? Are they skills that we really want people to have? What drives our economy and is it good for us?

I'll underline again that I am not against people studying to advance their careers. When reading this thread, however, it jumped out to me that almost everyone was framing their university experience through the prism of their career. That strikes me as very sad and a kind of end result of years of a cultural acceptance that you are your career and your wealth and your worth is bound up in that.

Learning is for life. It helps you make decisions and it's fun. Nobody seemed to be mentioning that.

I'd also add that university is fantastic for confronting you with your own ignorance and forcing you to challenge your own ideas. Especially true when dealing with arts and social sciences. This is why the idea of no-platforming and banning books is a source of great concern to me. Education is all about being disagreed with and being challenged and being forced to consider things that seem wrong to you on first glance.

Nobody can argue they are not useful experiences far beyond the world of work.

Edited August 24, 2019 by JTS98

[coprolite]

8 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

It comes back again to my initial objection. I don't think education should be seen so heavily through the prism of a career or the economy. That's not all life is.

I think we could also look backwards at the idea that universities don't provide the skills that employers want. What are those skills? Are they skills that we really want people to have? What drives our economy and is it good for us?

I'll underline again that I am not against people studying to advance their careers. When reading this thread, however, it jumped out to me that almost everyone was framing their university experience through the prism of their career. That strikes me as very sad and a kind of end result of years of a cultural acceptance that you are your career and your wealth and your worth is bound up in that.

Learning is for life. It helps you make decisions and it's fun. Nobody seemed to be mentioning that.

I'd also add that university is fantastic for confronting you with your own ignorance and forcing you to challenge your own ideas. Especially true when dealing with arts and social sciences. This is why the idea of no-platforming and banning books is a source of great concern to me. Education is all about being disagreed with and being challenged and being forced to consider things that seem wrong to you on first glance.

Nobody can argue they are not useful experiences far beyond the world of work.

This is the idea I disagree with. 

I think that this only holds true if you think that university=education. 

The fact that people view university as training for a career does not mean they place no value on education. 

It means that people view university courses more as a means of training than of education. 

Maybe in pre telegram days, people were educated at university, but nowadays people can educate themselves however they see fit (or more often not educate themselves and watch love Island). 

To suggest that you can't do meaningful education outside university is itself a massive ideological bias. One of Ivan Ilych's radical monopolies, innit? 

 

 

[coprolite]

57 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

I don’t see how any education could be classed as useless, except by those who would prefer to have an uneducated populace.

I'm pretty sure that every single divinity class I ever attended was completely useless, unless I ever really need a shit anecdote about lepers or camels. 

[Guest JTS98]

18 minutes ago, coprolite said:

This is the idea I disagree with. 

I think that this only holds true if you think that university=education. 

The fact that people view university as training for a career does not mean they place no value on education. 

It means that people view university courses more as a means of training than of education. 

Maybe in pre telegram days, people were educated at university, but nowadays people can educate themselves however they see fit (or more often not educate themselves and watch love Island). 

To suggest that you can't do meaningful education outside university is itself a massive ideological bias. One of Ivan Ilych's radical monopolies, innit? 

 

 

It would be, but I've never made that claim.

What I said was that university is a huge opportunity that deserves more regard than simply a means of career progression.

Of course people can become educated without ever setting foot in a university, but I'd argue most people will never encounter conditions so conducive to learning anywhere else.

Where else can you have access to experts on a daily basis who you can question in person, e-mail in person, listen to lectures by? Anyone can read a book, but where else can you have skilled direction of that reading and criticism of your conclusions? Where else can you find the (often rare and expensive) learning materials that universities typically possess? And you experience all this surrounded by other people studying the same thing as you, with different views, different perspectives, different experiences.

While it's easy to say that one can become educated outside a university, and it is possible, it's hard to think of any situation that touches it in terms of learning potential.

Edited August 24, 2019 by JTS98

[coprolite]

21 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

It would be, but I've never made that claim.

What I said was that university is a huge opportunity that deserves more regard than simply a means of career progression.

Of course people can become educated without ever setting foot in a university, but I'd argue most people will never encounter conditions so conducive to learning anywhere else.

Where else can you have access to experts on a daily basis who you can question in person, e-mail in person, listen to lectures by? Anyone can read a book, but where else can you have skilled direction of that reading and criticism of your conclusions? Where else can you find the (often rare and expensive) learning materials that universities typically possess? And you experience all this surrounded by other people studying the same thing as you, with different views, different perspectives, different experiences.

While it's easy to say that one can become educated outside a university, and it is possible, it's hard to think of any situation that touches it in terms of learning potential.

This is all massively about your experience and what you value as "education". I'm surprised that your brilliant bias recognition skills haven't picked this up. 

If somebody's gone to uni to learn software development for example, I'd be massively surprised if they evaluated their experience by anything other than how well it equipped them as a software developer. 

To suggest that it is sad that they don't go all misty eyed at remembering tutorials about project management techniques is just weird. 

I don't think that it's a shame that most people use the opportunities of university to increase their earning potential. 

Most of your arguments otherwise are condescending.