What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history – the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
303 Comments
- thewesterly, on 04/28/2009, -4/+81I read this as "End the Universe as We Know It" and got excited for a few seconds.
- cortneyw, on 04/28/2009, -6/+66The business model described here is the same model used at law firms: another dying industry. Firms are bloated with partners who are "owed" a piece of the business, while associates provide the labor needed only to join these ranks after their necessary years are paid (usually about 8-10 years). They then enter into this top-heavy tier that cannot be supported by the business below it. Similar to the tenure structure of professors, this model does not focus on excelling outside of one's minor sub-niche. Also similar to academia, this model thrives when times are good and money is plentiful, but begins to implode when the environment around it changes.
While the recommendations in this article are radical - and I do not agree with all of them - they are worthy of discussion and should spark a public debate on this important topic. I, for one, graduated from a physics department where the ONLY career option my professors provided me with was a path to professorship, like them. I asked time and again for alternative career guidance in my department of 40 undergraduates and 200 professors! And I always received the same reply: "get your PhD". Thank goodness I ignored them all! - misterrock, on 04/28/2009, -13/+59I want these religious faculty to stay the ***** away from engineering.
The whole attitude of the article (the only thing you can do with your degree is teach) doesn't mean there's a problem with our education system, it means there's a problem with worthless degrees. Don't major in English. Don't major in Philosophy. Don't major in any of that other ***** that won't get you anywhere. - Pacotheparrot, on 04/28/2009, -3/+41This article was very interesting and I agree with some of the points that the author makes. However, I feel the author is trying to retool every aspect of the university to serve a practical purpose which make be somewhat unrealistic. Certain fields such as History, Religious studies, and anthropology may not always be immediately useful. Does that mean they should be deposed of? I certainly hope not.
However, I do completely echo his comments about professors getting lifelong tenures and the complacency that it breeds. I'm currently a sophomore at UCSB and I've seen my fair share of profs. who don't give a damn about their students and really only want to be left alone to write books on an obscure field that's largely irrelevant to anyone outside of their department. - 3gibberish4q57, on 04/28/2009, -2/+38Does this mean I could get a bachelor's degree in "time" or "water"?
- inactive, on 04/28/2009, -20/+54Yeah more regulation! Look where that got us!
*facepalm* - ScienceDoc, on 04/28/2009, -11/+41This is why the Ivy League has fallen so far....inbreeding....they only hire from each other and they fall further behind everyday.
The emphasis on narrow scholarship also encourages an educational system that has become a process of cloning. Faculty members cultivate those students whose futures they envision as identical to their own pasts, even though their tenures will stand in the way of these students having futures as full professors. - wvaughan, on 04/29/2009, -1/+28Rigorously regulated universities? WHAT THE *****??? Could there be any bigger threat to individual liberty, rational thinking, and science?
- bsonline, on 04/28/2009, -1/+23I teach at a technical college, and as part of today's lesson I was comparing us to a local major university. I stand by what I said earlier today. We teach job skills, they further education and include some much needed skills. Our culture couldn't survive without higher learning of both types.
Meanwhile, I never went past my GED due to financial and time concerns. My wife has a Bachelors. I make more than her and have more job satisfaction. A lot of things need to be fixed in this culture - but it starts with people making better decisions. - cubicledrone, on 04/29/2009, -4/+24One fourth of classes are in the major course of study. The other classes are general education. Any hiring manager who does not recognize the value of a four-year degree is an incompetent, irresponsible assbag.
Oh, and if it weren't for the study of Philosophy and Language, there wouldn't be any ***** engineers. You learn that in college. - michelsonmorley, on 04/28/2009, -0/+18I disagree with the article on his first 3 points (though completely agree with his last 3). This article may be applicable to certain degrees, but not for science/engineering degrees.
1) Science/engineering students take courses outside of their core degree. A physicist will take chemistry or bioengineering courses depending on their field.
2) Permanent departments are necessary. It would be difficult, if not impossible to get rid of departments. Part of research grants go for department overhead that pays for secretaries to manage such grants, shops, computers, etc. And since departments have different needs, there's no reason all grants should have the same overhead. Plus, bad policies are less likely to change if there's a few hundred professors to deal with on any subject compared to less then a hundred.
3) I'm pretty sure different institutions have stronger and weaker points. At least where I live, one institution nearby is considered great for arts while the other is better at scientific research.
There's a huge difference in graduate degrees - I'm not sure a 12 year graduate degree in English is worth much outside of becoming a professor yourself. However a graduate degree in an engineering/science background tends to be a lot shorter and often leads to a job in industry. Perhaps the difference in the degree length is related to the available jobs afterwards. - spongya77, on 04/28/2009, -2/+20Dude. You don't make any sense.
- devophl, on 04/29/2009, -2/+18Even though I will never regret my graduate education, I pretty much agree with what he has to say. Universities have become huge research institutions where education has become a secondary purpose (or even tertiary to sports).
While working 10 years at a university after getting a M.S. I quickly realized that most of the research going on was so narrow it was virtually irrelevant. Collaboration and interdisciplinary work was almost nonexistent and in some cases even discouraged. Tenured professors had created little dominions honoring their prior work (often 20 years out of date) manned by a half dozen or so grad students doing all their dirty work while being virtually untouchable. Undergraduate education, especially in the sciences, has increasingly become a means to train researchers while companies who hired these graduates increasingly complain of students who are ill-prepared for the corporate world.
Even though universities are great at teaching people how to think, they seem to be increasingly teaching the wrong things. Given what you take from a four year college degree, you'd sometimes be better off becoming an apprentice and learning a trade outside of the university paradigm. - quirkopatra, on 04/28/2009, -0/+16...and I feel fine.
- crash331, on 04/29/2009, -2/+17English isn't useless if you have a plan to actually use it. My fiance is an English teacher, so it suits her well.
- LittleDas, on 04/29/2009, -0/+13The writer is clearly a humanities person because they don't understand the first thing about why their suggestions are ridiculous for any technical education. Problem oriented curriculums are unbelievably shortsighted since they detract from fundamental research. For many people, there ARE job opportunities outside of grad school. In fact, many people have their grad school education paid for by their employer. It seems like the author doesn't like the ***** that is grad level humanities but can't figure out a solution that doesn't sound like, "I want to live in a magical wonderland where nobody specializes and everybody shares everything and I'm probably a communist anyway."
- Jeepinator, on 04/28/2009, -16/+29It's sad that the author considers it a fact that regulation of Wall Street and Detroit is a good thing.
- peters1023, on 04/28/2009, -0/+12Big words, questionable usage of said nomenclature, and bad grammar do indeed make his post difficult to comprehend.
- Branchex, on 04/29/2009, -0/+12Why does the government need to force this upon schools? Colleges care about making money and if the writers model truly is a better way to do things then they will adopt it and then use the results to lure potential students. The government should be focusing on grade schools which they are still messing up on.
- Strongo, on 04/29/2009, -0/+11I have a worthless degree in History. I make a decent $45,000 this year with my entry level position.
- dionymnia, on 04/29/2009, -5/+16You realize that it's not "religious" professors, but Religion professors, right? There is a difference - they're not priests. They're more interested in studying the history and effects of religion, not in promoting religious doctrine....
And, just to point out, engineers, as they advance in work, spend anywhere from 60-80% of their time WRITING (taught by...English departments!). I'm tired of engineering and computer science students who poopoo on "worthless" classes like writing courses, because they're convinced they won't have to do it in their job. Sure, you won't - and you won't be any more than a code monkey. Have fun with that. - orfane, on 04/29/2009, -9/+20How is Philosophy a worthless degree? Granted there is little job market afterwards, but without Philosophy, how can we claim to know anything? Best bet is double major. Philosophy is a great way to learn problem solving and get a good handle on your own thoughts.
- RatatRatR, on 04/29/2009, -0/+11I definitely wouldn't want to live in a place where nobody ever studied anything outside of their vocational training.
- gustav42, on 04/29/2009, -2/+12Agreed! Less government support will accomplish this better, faster, cheaper. Let the institutes of higher education make their money the old fashion way -- earn it.
- mah2cent, on 04/29/2009, -4/+14Another example of a "university insider" that believes government regulation is the cure-all for everything, including education. We already have too much government regulation; we don't need more. As a matter of fact, government regulation is one of the major problems with education at all levels. One a school agrees to take government funding, the also much agree to all of the government's other requirement, like what books are acceptable for students. (Probably applies mostly to elementary through high schools). Another problem with the government intervention is in the area of government guaranteed or outright granting of student loans. Once the government begins this process, the college feels it is free to start charging a lot more for everything. Schools not only teach, but they become book seller, landlords, police, etc. A result is the ever increasing costs of education US for 2007 was $972 Billion or over $3000. per year for every man, woman, and child in the US. So, the answer is to remove all government regulation from education, not add more.
- lamejoketeller, on 04/28/2009, -0/+10you got that far?
- mattman6, on 04/29/2009, -0/+10This is mainly only relevant for humanities departments. In the sciences professors have much more of a drive to continue doing good work after they get tenure. Unless they continue to contribute their grants will dry up and they'll be left with nothing.
- offrdbandit, on 04/29/2009, -0/+10"... but it starts with people making better decisions."
Just about the best comment I've ever seen around here. - Zdorab, on 04/29/2009, -1/+10Government better stay the hell away from my colleges or so help me I'll complain about it on digg.
- warriorscot, on 04/29/2009, -0/+9I was taught how to write by someone with a degree in education. And after that it was a person with a degree in divinity.
Engineering isn't the only useful subject. Pretty much all the sciences are useful. My rule is if I can't be what I have a degree in its not worth having a degree in it. So if I studied chemistry I would want to be a chemist or something similar. - DoctorFaust, on 04/29/2009, -2/+11There needs to be an OP-ED tag or something so the sensationalist ***** can be labelled properly.
- inactive, on 04/29/2009, -0/+9It would be nice if the Universities hired Professors that could teach.... Not just people who are great at writing papers and grants.
- lamejoketeller, on 04/28/2009, -1/+9Yeah! Good ideas should never be repeated after being said once!
- spongya77, on 04/29/2009, -1/+9While the article does raise a few valid points, mostly about the use -or abuse- of grad students, the author completely misunderstands how natural sciences work. His model simply does not work in an actual research environment. (And I confess, I see "serious" research as something done in natural sciences, archeology, and so on. I know it's arrogance, and I'm sorry for it. But in practical terms the costs of any type of research in physics, chemistry or biology are enormous -I have no idea about costs in arts and humanities-, and research usually require very substantial investments into equipment. These things are best used in a departmental setup at the minimum. Try to get a particle collider for a 7 year project. As a biologist working on some "obscure" embryological problem I also have no use for sociologists, or lawyers, rather than other researchers (mathematicians, chemists, other biologists) who can provide valuable input, help with data analysis, and so on. If I happen to find a cure for cancer, then we can have workshops on the different impacts of the project -as there are similar inter-science workshops on stem cell, and so on. (And there are different -gasp- graduate courses as well..)
And no matter how inefficient the academic environment looks like there's simply no other working alternative. Not to mention, it is remarkably flexible. The real problem is that money is tight, so there are a lot of interesting projects out there with no funding -and lot of young scientist who can't get a position in research.
Some professors do treat their tenure as a little slice of heaven where they don't have to work any more. But these problems are not very wide-spread.
The graduate students have it rough -that's true. There's no sane American who would work literally 24/7 for anything between 16 to 28 grants a year for five or more years to get a PhD (I got 16 -now look at my credit card debts), so they get foreigners, who don't know the realities here, to come (like me); and mostly from China and India (that's not me). Their main role from the perspective of the university is to teach. They are completely at the mercy of their professors in the labs. There are no jobs in the academia -true-, but the biotech and other industries are usually happy to have these people - bacon_skoda, on 04/29/2009, -0/+8Yeah! Good ideas should never be repeated after being said once!
- inactive, on 04/29/2009, -0/+8No no, that's in 2012, when the tuna runs out... And the lolcat uprising begins.
- tech42er, on 04/29/2009, -1/+9I don't disagree with your copy and pasting FTFA, but the Ivy league has not really fallen in any way. They are more successful than ever, no mater how you measure it: applications, selectivity, success of graduates, research, etc.
- Barackalypse, on 04/29/2009, -1/+8Counterpoint: American higher education is the only part of our educational system that is not abjectly failing. The best minds still come from world over to attend our institutions of higher learning such as MIT or Harvard. One only needs to look at the performance of the primary and secondary educational systems that are subject to, I presume, more regulation and direct involvement from the Government to see why this doesn't work.
My favorite part of the article is this little gem: "Most graduate programs in American universities produce a product for which there is no market "
This reeks of paternalism, students should be free to study whatever they wish, regardless of their job prospects or utility to society. While I'd prefer a country of engineers to art history majors, I respect an individuals right to pursue whatever course of study they feel inclined toward. Anyone who doesn't or who wishes to direct or dilute that study towards some other goals, is an instrument of tyranny. - warriorscot, on 04/29/2009, -2/+9You don't need a university education to study and understand philosophy.
On the other hand: Physics, Maths, Chemistry, Biology, Engineering and Geology among others all need university level facilities just to teach the subject and produce working professionals. - akatsuki, on 04/29/2009, -1/+8Law firms have other problems, such as massive undercapitalization as they have to maintain a high profits per partner to retain rainmakers. Lawyers are also prohibited from fee splitting which prevents them from taking large firms public or hiring independent management with expertise in actual running of a business (not that a partner would ever admit to having a lack in such skills - but the way they waste talent is almost criminal and is certainly obscene).
Universities actually have different problems, they are split up between sports, research and education missions which are fundamentally different propositions. In addition, they support numerous non-profitable majors. Do you really think that 2000 people in a microeconomics lecture hall are really needed to pay the one professor and 2-3 assistants? Not a chance.
Really we should divorce the business of education from research. Spin off college sports into minor leagues as a total distraction from education. Departments should have to make individual cases for profitability as well as be able to charge for costs (e.g. bio majors using DNA sequencers might have to actually pay for those things, whereas romantic french history majors will not have the same benefits of scale to pay). Even as non-profit entities, they throw money down the drain. - AmusedToDeath, on 04/29/2009, -0/+7As someone who recently left a graduate program for many of the reasons outlined, I can tell you there is enormous truth in what this guy is saying. I'm not sure I agree with all of his solutions, but he is right that there needs to be a dramatic change in the way graduate programs are designed and run.
When I stopped pursuing my degree in favor of starting a company that might involve actually getting my hands dirty, my profs all acted like I was insane. Now I'm making more money than they do and actually enjoy going to work every day, which is more than I can say for most of them. - hillbillyboy07, on 04/28/2009, -6/+13I couldn't read it and I am not going to register.
- ChileanGoD, on 04/29/2009, -1/+8You're the sexiest physicist I have even seen.
- nemomarlin, on 04/29/2009, -3/+10The problem is not the majors, but the people in it. There are far too many people in college in America.
- redwire, on 04/28/2009, -1/+8I was with you until the geodesic homes.
- MalarkeyPN, on 04/29/2009, -1/+7Not every branch of scientific inquiry turns out to be useful or worthwhile. My bro-in-law did a phd chemistry dissertation which explained a new way to perform some sort of industrial process. Only problem was, the present industry standard is much more efficient than his. So he knew he was working on something ultimately useless. Lots of taxpayer dollars supported his degree (stipend, lab access, staff...), now he works for Exxon and makes bank, with no student debt.
Now you might say that someday, his findings will turn out to provide some value to society. You might say that all scientific inquiry is valuable. I'd say that's a dogmatic belief. I'd also say that my bro-in-law's thesis work was probably only marginally more likely to turn out to be useful than the dissertation described in the article, where the student was examining the citation practices of a medieval theologian. I'd also say that most phd dissertations in the sciences are at least as useless if not more useless than his.
What bothers me is that people in the sciences refuse to acknowledge the value of the humanities. As a scientist you are trained to operate on the assumption that if something can't be measured precisely, it doesn't exist or has no value. That's a useful maxim within it's own context but ultimately it's a limited and meaningless way to go through life. Science tells us how to solve certain problems. The humanities tell us why we care to solve them. - tech42er, on 04/29/2009, -1/+7Argument ad absurdum fail. He would be part of the problem if he got his Phd, but he chose not to. He got out of academia.
- fasda, on 04/29/2009, -3/+9Well as a scientist I claim to know stuff by measuring different properties and using them to determine other properties. Then I create graphs based on that data which are then used to create theories. This unlike philosophies is actually verifiable, is tied to reality and ulitmately theres only one answer.
- RickGonja, on 04/29/2009, -0/+6I am a computer engineering student and I don't think other majors are useless. I enjoyed my English classes as well as the other liberal arts class I took. I do some tutoring and hear whining from both sides. The engineering students complain about "useless liberal arts classes" and students seeking a non technical degree see no reason to take college algebra or other math classes.
- offrdbandit, on 04/29/2009, -8/+14If you don't like the way Wall Street operates, don't send them your money.
It's pretty simple. -
Show 51 - 100 of 311 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is