HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
The Chronicle of Higher Education has posted a "conversation with Bill Gates" about the future of higher education.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
A Conversation With Bill Gates
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
DejaWiz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2005
- Messages
- 21,826
Being well into the digital communication age, why not? It's long overdue, imo.
"having a lot of kids sit in the lecture class will be viewed at some point as an antiquated thing."
Completely agree, all the classes in which I actually learned something we never lectures. All a lecture does is communicate information, doing actually teaches it.
Completely agree, all the classes in which I actually learned something we never lectures. All a lecture does is communicate information, doing actually teaches it.
Oldie
Mean Old Administrator
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2004
- Messages
- 21,888
I decided to take up teaching a few classes at a local college recently and I couldn't agree more. Our current educational model is the product of a bygone age and needs to go bye bye. Traditional lecture does have value, but today we could put that same time to much better use. Things like http://www.khanacademy.org/ for instance, do a better job of teaching math for a large number of students than the old "watch me do it in class now go do it on your own with little to no help" method...and it's free.
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,932
Agreed as well. Much of the time the professor just read off slides or textbook stuff that you have access to on the class website anyway. A lot of the time I didn't bother going to some of those lectures because it was pointless.
Alternatively, I loved going to physics "sections" where you had a small group and worked through experiments. Interaction is key to learning.
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 16,007
Yet most students won't learn on their own from slides, books, etc. The lecture is not antiquated at all, however what is antiquated is the idea of students sitting in one and taking notes and calling that an education. Lectures are useful though, you have a 600 page book, lectures help let you know what of that is important, and to delve a bit further than what the book goes over.
While there is a need of change, all the changing in the world isn't going to do crap if the students themselves don't give a shit about learning the subject they have to be enrolled in. I don't believe change is going to work in the form of the teaching methods, they're just used as scapegoats in all this, real change that needs to be done is to rework the entire system, get rid of all these candy ass bullshit classes that you don't want to take. You want to be an electrical engineer? Fine take the engineering classes, electronics classes, and some math classes, and that's it, you shouldn't have to take history classes, English classes, foreign languages, any social science classes, biology classes, or chemistry classes. Let people specialize from the get go, high school was about making a "well rounded" choice, now people pay money to become specialized. Someone wants to take all those other classes and be well rounded? No problem we call that a liberal arts major, take a few of a bunch of classes, where as the physicist or the chemist or the history major takes a shit-ton of classes pertaining to ONLY their field of study.
Alternatively, I loved going to physics "sections" where you had a small group and worked through experiments. Interaction is key to learning.[/QUOTE]
sfsuphysics
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2007
- Messages
- 16,007
Gak! I hit reply instead of preview
I agree, but this goes back to the idea of classes where students are simply taking it just to get their science credit to graduate in their major... interaction isn't good enough.
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,932
Fair enough, but what I am saying is that some professors will literally just read word for word from the book (without this "delving further" as you say), or have slides that basically do the same thing, while offering all of it online anyway. To me that seems like a waste of time if you are getting the same information either way, and don't have much, if any opportunity to ask questions (that's what office hours are for, apparently).
DeathPrincess
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 18,205
Yes. Thats what the focus is on way too much. All that classes seem to be is exam preparation, but thats what schools are graded on. So you end up just being taught stuff thats on the papers. Which kind of makes it boring and means youd have huge holes in your knowledge, and probably not get some basic non exam concepts.
SkribbelKat
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 5,330
Yes. Thats what the focus is on way too much. All that classes seem to be is exam preparation, but thats what schools are graded on. So you end up just being taught stuff thats on the papers. Which kind of makes it boring and means youd have huge holes in your knowledge, and probably not get some basic non exam concepts.
Public schools are funded based on exam results so they don't have any choice but to teach in a way that targets standardized tests. Significant changes in how people think are necessary in order to find a different way of determining if a school is or isn't doing its job effectively.
Red Falcon
[H]ard DCOTM December 2023
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 12,464
+1 to this, from grade school to college.
HardwareSearcher
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2008
- Messages
- 218
How does Bill Gates justify his supposed concern about education? Every chance he gets, he lobbies for, pays others to lobby for, and fully supports massively increased importation of "temporary" foreign STEM workers while there are at minimum hundreds of thousands of unemployed American STEM workers. Young American students are going to graduate from his new education system and STILL have no opportunities.
PynkFloydd
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 617
Like Mr. Gates, I'm fortunate enough to be heading to one of the top universities in the world this fall. I've worked hard to earn my place and will be making a significant (financial) contribution towards my education while there. ...but, I'm not exactly "the problem" area in American eduction. From what I've seen, there are significant obstacles to overcome.
Problems I've seen:
Baseline Education Level - A lot of average students coming into college aren't as capable as their peers. Most of these students either try to skate by with the minimum or slowly withdraw as they meet greater challenges.
Administrative Incompetence - A lot of schools are run by people looking at their institution as a business. The concentration here becomes a cash grab as opposed to quality "output" or completion rates.
Flawed Government Grant Process - The requirements for a lot of incentives are just "minimums". I.E. - If a school gets a veteran's liason, they get extra $$. This doesn't mean the veteran's liason is actually helpful or solely there to help vets.
Qauntity over Quality - At institutions with little or no entrance requirements, the focus is on getting the most people through the door regardless of completion. This results in cuts to honors and merit programs. ...which results in quality teachers leaving.
Anyways, just a few things I've seen. At the end of the day, not everyone is meant to go to college. The emphasis should be on teaching the kids that actually want to be there and finding a place in our society for the ones that don't.
...and what is the difference between a "top" school? Classes are smaller and you get personal access to individuals at the top of their fields (most of which are still actively engaged in their field). There is absolutely no babying and workloads are insane. ...not to mention that all of your peers are there to fight to be #1.
At the end of the day, technology won't turn every American youth into a super-student. It'll come down to enlightening them to clear career paths that follow their passions. That'll take quality teacher and admin that actually care about students.
Problems I've seen:
Baseline Education Level - A lot of average students coming into college aren't as capable as their peers. Most of these students either try to skate by with the minimum or slowly withdraw as they meet greater challenges.
Administrative Incompetence - A lot of schools are run by people looking at their institution as a business. The concentration here becomes a cash grab as opposed to quality "output" or completion rates.
Flawed Government Grant Process - The requirements for a lot of incentives are just "minimums". I.E. - If a school gets a veteran's liason, they get extra $$. This doesn't mean the veteran's liason is actually helpful or solely there to help vets.
Qauntity over Quality - At institutions with little or no entrance requirements, the focus is on getting the most people through the door regardless of completion. This results in cuts to honors and merit programs. ...which results in quality teachers leaving.
Anyways, just a few things I've seen. At the end of the day, not everyone is meant to go to college. The emphasis should be on teaching the kids that actually want to be there and finding a place in our society for the ones that don't.
...and what is the difference between a "top" school? Classes are smaller and you get personal access to individuals at the top of their fields (most of which are still actively engaged in their field). There is absolutely no babying and workloads are insane. ...not to mention that all of your peers are there to fight to be #1.
At the end of the day, technology won't turn every American youth into a super-student. It'll come down to enlightening them to clear career paths that follow their passions. That'll take quality teacher and admin that actually care about students.
leeleatherwood
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,582
Exactly.
I was in the Military and thus received the post 9-11 GI Bill. I could have went to basically any school in the country and the government would have paid for it 100% (for 4 years)
I chose to go to a Technical School simply because I did not want to waste my time taking classes that have nothing to do with what I need to learn. I will graduate with more knowledge and certifications in my profession in 18 months than I would have if I chose to go to a traditional college or university for 4 years.
I feel that traditional schools use that shitty "well-rounded" excuse just so that it takes the student longer to graduate, thus earning the school more money. K-12 schooling is what is responsible for making one well rounded, college needs to be strictly professional development.
DejaWiz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2005
- Messages
- 21,826
^ 100% agree with you. I took all my core Electrical Engineering classes my first year to get them all out of the way and earned my Certificate. Almost got through my 2nd year, but I was stuck being forced to take classes that had nothing to do with my focus, like business math and English communications. Couldn't stand it...especially since I had to enroll and pay for them. It's my life and money, I should be able to tailor my own curriculum, thank you very much.
Oldie
Mean Old Administrator
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2004
- Messages
- 21,888
Yeah, I personally have a big problem with Liberal Arts. Don't get me wrong, that kind of an education has a lot of value, but we've gotten ourselves into this "You need a bachelors degree or else" mentality and the employers right there with us. The problem is that we don't have a very good technical certificate/apprenticeship system established in this country. Sure we need individuals who are very well rounded academically, but we also need people who have an almost myopic view of their field. You can get "career specific" training very early on in life a lot more quickly than you can a traditional degree that can make you a lot more effective in the workplace (and subsequently producing/earning more) by the time you hit 20.
Not everyone who would make a fantastic Project Manger can pass calculus or a foreign language, but you can't get a respectable degree without it. Even if they *can* they may simply lack the drive to do it, get discouraged, and quit the whole damn thing over one subject they're never going to make a practical use of.
Not everyone who would make a fantastic Project Manger can pass calculus or a foreign language, but you can't get a respectable degree without it. Even if they *can* they may simply lack the drive to do it, get discouraged, and quit the whole damn thing over one subject they're never going to make a practical use of.
I felt the same way too. Had to start taking irrelevant classes on old boring novels. I read novels, mind you, a lot of them in fact. Just got through the 6th book of Ranger's Apprentice in 3 days. However, the ones they sometimes got you reading are just soooo boring.
I do think you should take some classes regarding it, but only in the earlier years of education, like in Grade, Middle, or High school. Most people, by the time they hit College is well rounded enough, and want to concentrate on their actual interests. What makes it dumber is that you're force to pay for these classes that don't help you in your target major.
Smart lecturers know that and so make sure you're doing something during lectures. I learnt heaps in my advanced aerodynamics lectures, 2nd year mathematics, electronics and aircraft engines lectures because the lecturers who took it made sure they were teaching you content but also making you write things out and do sample problems in the classes. I never missed a lecture in any of those units because I knew they were valuable, thought provoking and if you missed them it'd take you longer to catch up. Most other units I just skipped the lectures and learnt the units on my own time.
There's definitely value in lectures, it's just most lecturers don't understand how to teach. It's gotten worse with powerpoint IMO, more and more lecturers just put everything on a powerpoint and regurgitate information at you that after about 10 minutes you're falling asleep. The best lecturers I had through my undergraduate course would use those plastic hand written slides on projectors.
I think one of the biggest problem with higher education (at least in this country, I can't speak for elsewhere) is that the people teaching you are researchers and such, NOT teachers, most of them have no fucking clue how to teach. Many have no interest in teaching and most have little that qualifies them as a teacher. Some of the courses I reckon I could do a better job of teaching compared to the academics they have teaching them at the moment. Maybe it's more true in engineering where very few of the lecturers actually have any real engineering experience.
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,932
Agreed, and that's a good point about the hand-written slides. If I think back, some of the better lectures indeed used both Powerpoint slides and the hand-written slides so they could add things and use examples.
The problem, like you said, is that too many lecturers just make up slides based on the book and regurgitate that info in lecture, when you can just go online and read the same info from the course website.
D
Deleted whining member 223597
Guest
I still don't get why you have to take all that shit. I don't want to be a fucking english major, I give zero shits about poetry, why do I need to do this stuff if I want to be an engineer?
Hamish Campbell
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 2,062
Because without those classes you wouldn't be educated. You'd be trained. We round out mathematicians and engineers with liberal arts studies because they'll be dealing with people throughout their careers who aren't mathematicians and engineers. Having a broad educational background to draw from will pay dividends throughout life. You may have a laser focus on engineering, and that's fine, but productive people (be it producing ideas or widgets) really do benefit from having a varied set of skills and knowledge.
That's not to say that your degree should live and die by your ability to interpret poetry, but having exposure to that subject will definitely get your mind moving in directions it may not otherwise have had to. That can only be a good thing.
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,932
Not sure what your curriculum was like, but I was never required to take anything poetry-related for my engineering degree. I had to take basic English composition, as well as a couple technical writing courses, but all of that is expected and useful for engineering. You'd be surprised (or maybe not) how many "professionals" have utterly terrible writing skills.
Oldie
Mean Old Administrator
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2004
- Messages
- 21,888
I completely agree with this....BUT...the emphasis on that rounding out can be a lot more optional than it is. Those who go the distance should stand a chance of being better rewarded career wise, but there are a lot of people who simply can't/won't take the time and expense for a bachelors degree that could be greatly benefited by a "lesser" program. In fact, that's the way society has worked for thousands of years, we've only now begun insisting that everyone get a well rounded education, because it lines the pockets of the universities.
DejaWiz
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2005
- Messages
- 21,826
But again, it's been stated and I agree with that's what elementary, middle, and high school is for. When I get to college that requires me forking my money over for, I should have 100% control over the content of my curriculum when I choose a very focused major based on my interests. I do realise that there are quite a few people that enter college not knowing what they want to do with their lives, and that's fine, let the general studies type degrees remain, but don't force me into the same classes and tack on the classes that matter to me on the side as an after-thought. That's pure lazy, greed, or both at hard work there on the college's part.
PynkFloydd
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2008
- Messages
- 617
It's actually the opposite. For thousands of years, the focus has been on a liberal arts base and "well-rounded" individuals. At the extreme end, Spartans even required their young men to study dancing and music.
The top universities in our country all have an undergraduate program based on a liberal arts curriculum. A lot of these classes are called their "core". University of Pennsylvania was actually founded on this principal by Benjamin Franklin and further refined by top institutions over the years.
Now, the idea that college and higher education was to be used strictly as a bridge to a professional carreer is a very new transition. The foundation of our universities is as an extension of the church. ...which is why most of our oldest/top universities have a latin (except for Yale) motto that reflects something about truth/knowledge/God.
There are plenty of reasons why a degree from a "top" school is worth more in the working world, but an education with a liberal arts base is definitely one of the top reasons.
Hamish Campbell
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 2,062
Elementary education is there to lay your mental foundations. Broadening your horizons is part of it, certainly, but the core goal is to educate you to a basic competency sufficient for participation in society. Once you have that foundation, higher education is the best place to explore new and different interests and learn subjects that may not be in your comfort zone.
I disagree with you about having control over your own curriculum even though you may be paying for it. Baccalaureate programs aren't just about preparing you exclusively for a chosen field or catering to your needs. It's about educating a student broadly enough so that they can be a successful person first, and then especially so in their chosen field.
Oldie
Mean Old Administrator
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2004
- Messages
- 21,888
Right, and that's a good thing. I just think we need a more prominent class of lesser degrees. I clearly think education has value, I recently completed a masters program just for fun, I just see a lot of disenfranchised 20 somethings with no skills and no real chance of completing a 4 year degree.
Hamish Campbell
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 2,062
I agree. I'm just wary of morphing our traditional BA and BS programs into something they weren't intended to be. I also worry some would devalue the benefits that come with those programs. Lesser, career specific programs in a traditional college setting would be great thing so long as we don't equate success in them as carrying the same weight as a more well rounded education.