U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Education
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-15-2019, 12:16 AM
 
Location: Eugene, Oregon
8,602 posts, read 2,758,841 times
Reputation: 12492

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaraZetterberg153 View Post
@Quietude: I understand what you're saying. I'm a violinist and violin teacher and am always amused and not a little exasperated when people attempt to teach themselves the violin. They always, if the desire to play persists, find their way to a teacher--and have to unlearn everything they "taught" themselves. You can strum a little on the guitar, but you need the violin teacher. It's just too complicated.

In making my list I did recognize that many of the subject areas have to be done in a classroom setting, particularly the computer courses. There's nothing here but a big state university, and these courses are vocational, mostly, and not taught in university. It would entail me moving out of state, and I'm not feeling well.
What came first, the violin or the violin player? Obviously it was the violin and then its inventor had to learn how to play it, without any other player to provide instruction. True, there were other stringed instruments that were played with a bow, that preceded it. But can you imagine how playing techniques specific to it were developed rapidly enough, that the instrument survived and its popularity spread? Who else but its inventor and maybe a handful of friends would have had access to it? I suggest that the playing of every new instrument has to be essentially self-taught. And if the first player can do that, why not many others, today?

There have been enough self-taught musicians from the backwoods, who became successful, to challenge your theory. Are you saying that the violin is the most complicated and difficult instrument and is in a class of its own?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-15-2019, 06:13 AM
 
2,570 posts, read 854,499 times
Reputation: 3570
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve McDonald View Post
What came first, the violin or the violin player? Obviously it was the violin and then its inventor had to learn how to play it, without any other player to provide instruction. True, there were other stringed instruments that were played with a bow, that preceded it. But can you imagine how playing techniques specific to it were developed rapidly enough, that the instrument survived and its popularity spread? Who else but its inventor and maybe a handful of friends would have had access to it? I suggest that the playing of every new instrument has to be essentially self-taught. And if the first player can do that, why not many others, today?

There have been enough self-taught musicians from the backwoods, who became successful, to challenge your theory. Are you saying that the violin is the most complicated and difficult instrument and is in a class of its own?
Yes, except for the harp, the violin is the hardest instrument. You can play folk music, or do your own thing if you want, but it you want to play in orchestras, learn the repertoire, play professionally or earn performance degrees, you need a teacher. Please trust me on this.

As to the origins of the violin, and the distinction between folk music and art music, from the Violin/Viola FAQ:

Quote:
(30)How many different fiddle styles are there?
The "art music" versus popular or folk music discussion: The distinction is between so-called "art music" and popular or folk music. This distinction is no longer very meaningful, however, as the social classes that participate in these art forms are pretty much completely across-the-board. In other words, highly educated individuals enjoy playing "fiddle," and discovering what that art form is about, and students from all social classes (not just the privileged), study classical music.

There is still some resentment. Sometimes people are taken aback by the term "art music," assuming that this phrase suggests that other musics are not art (understandable, actually). But nothing could be further from the truth. The phrase "art music" is found in every musicology textbook, and simply means a distinction between academically oriented music versus popular or folk musics. It is not pejorative.

If you trace the history of music from the Renaissance to the present, it is evident how events in music mirror the socioeconomic events in human history. In the early development of Western "art music," this music was mostly created for the European wealthy class. There was no middle class - until the Industrial Revolution.

At that time, entrepreneurs began designing larger concert halls to accommodate the middle class, who could afford concert tickets, and the modern stringed, keyboard, brass and woodwind instruments came into being, in response to the acoustic needs of these big halls.*

This is an important fact that students should understand. The "piano-forte" (our modern piano) was so called because it could play both loudly and softly; an ability unknown in the previous keyboard instruments (like the harpsichord), which were designed for the small "chamber" ensembles, which were an entertainment of the wealthy.

In Arnold Steinhardt's Violin Dreams he wrote about his visit to Mark O'Connor's summer fiddle camp:
Quote:
where violinists of all types -- jazz, bluegrass, country and western, blues, rock, Texas style, old-time, classical, and Cape Breton -- gathered to teach and play. (p. 240, 2006 ed.)
So he mentions eight styles, other than classical. I have a couple of questions about this: (a) Should there be other styles on this list?; and (b) What are the definitions of each?

See: Fiddle Styles for further discussion.
Note that there are a huge number of fiddle styles (as you'll see if you follow the link), not just the few represented at the fiddle camp. In virtually every corner of the planet where there were humans, some form of violin music developed. The violin has a human voice, is portable. Lots of backwoods fiddlers were and are successful, as you say. And even so, it's probable that all of those had some form of teaching or influence, models they learned from. But in contemporary practice, violin is an art form, passed down from teacher to student.

Last edited by KaraZetterberg153; 04-15-2019 at 06:41 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2019, 11:29 AM
 
2,725 posts, read 680,978 times
Reputation: 3099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
You can only teach yourself so much. Some fields are a matter of simply absorbing information, but many of the things you list require that information plus learning how to apply it - and things like educated judgment, esthetics, decision-making, which can't really be self-taught. To learn any four or five of the general categories you've listed could take several years of not just reading and webinars, but engagement with experienced mentors who can help you stay on track and really learn what a topic is about.

That's, um, called college.

So in five or six years you can have read a lot, tinkered a little, joined a few MeetUp groups about photography and entrepreneurism, maybe gotten a little working experience in one area or another... or have put in more formal, guided, and likely more valuable time checking off those boxes in progress towards an encompassing degree.

It may be my own prejudice and experience, but the notion that you can read your way to graphic, visual and online skills is particularly grating. I've worked with and around too many people who had no real gift for these endeavors but had gotten A's in all the classes and stayed current with all the webinars.

I am extensively autodidacticized, myself... but across decades and with the key and foundational and "developmental" parts coming from formal education, evaluation and guidance. OTOH, the (all too common) idea that someone can only learn from a formal class or teacher makes me giggle hysterically.
An autodidact and a college graduate will look at each other with a degree of (restrained or unrestrained) ridicule. What vs. why.

In my opinion. OTJ (On-The-Job training) trumps both. You're paid to learn and learn to use an existing, productive implementation of a model that you'd encounter in the ivory tower.

For those who are good at comprehending abstractions, you might be able to learn from a book and answer relevant questions and solve problems, given only a scenario off of a piece of paper. But knowing only this, you'd still sound a bit "off" coming straight out of a classroom and into a mature company that uses proprietary lingo on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2019, 03:10 PM
 
1,282 posts, read 275,590 times
Reputation: 2108
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaraZetterberg153 View Post
Autodidacticism

Rather than sit in community college classrooms for five or six years, I thought I might attempt to teach myself the following subjects, using the internet and books (see complete list, below*):


What are the most commonly recommended books in these areas?
Anyone have any luck teaching themselves these subjects?
I am not a professional educator, but I've heard a few opine that students have differing learning styles. Some learn best by reading. Others by doing. Others still by listening & observing.

Classroom lectures are sometimes criticized as a method to get material from the notebook of the professor into the notebook of the student without going through the mind of either one. I think that's a bit unfair. I find classroom lectures to be a very effective way to learn - but that's just me.

There is a world of difference between being a student sitting in a lecture and being a student watching a video of that same lecture. Early cinematographers just put movie cameras in the back of a theater with a live stage production thinking that was a great way to capture "Hamlet." While it captured it, the audience experience is so different watching a live production compared to a video of a live production that the latter are relegated to dust heaps of failed experiments.

So... know how you learn, and structure things accordingly.

As I look at your list, A couple things come to mind:

1) You might be missing some prerequisites on the course list. For example, corporate finance is best understood with explanations using calculus, and I don't see that on the list. Calc I and Calc II (a solid academic year's worth.)

2) If you're going to take a class in corporate finance, a year-long sequence in asset valuation/investment/corporate finance would be better.

3) To better understand corporate finance, asset valuation & investments, you should also have a working understanding of prob & stat. A one year sequence would help tremendously - but at least a 1/2 year combination of the two.

4) I think you need a solid two classes in beginning and intermediate microeconomic theory as foundations for several of the other business-y classes. If math is not your strong suit, take microeconomics without using calculus. If you are good at math, take it with calculus.

But - what are you trying to accomplish??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2019, 03:36 AM
 
6,934 posts, read 10,118,784 times
Reputation: 5309
I have a short attention span, so I usually don't learn much from lectures. I usually go home and teach myself from the textbook. I earned an "A" in high school chemistry by teaching myself. I'm just as bad at paying attention to recorded lectures, which is why I don't like the boring lectures on edX and Coursera, but I can at least rewind and replay recorded lectures.

You don't need to be a genius to teach yourself things. Many people in IT are self-taught. Being able to teach yourself new technologies is pretty much required to stay current. If someone couldn't teach herself basic IT skills that are taught at community colleges, I would question whether that person had the aptitude for that line of work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2019, 11:38 AM
 
2,725 posts, read 680,978 times
Reputation: 3099
Quote:
Originally Posted by L210 View Post
I have a short attention span, so I usually don't learn much from lectures. I usually go home and teach myself from the textbook. I earned an "A" in high school chemistry by teaching myself. I'm just as bad at paying attention to recorded lectures, which is why I don't like the boring lectures on edX and Coursera, but I can at least rewind and replay recorded lectures.

You don't need to be a genius to teach yourself things. Many people in IT are self-taught. Being able to teach yourself new technologies is pretty much required to stay current. If someone couldn't teach herself basic IT skills that are taught at community colleges, I would question whether that person had the aptitude for that line of work.
I'd recommend setting up a lab for IT/CS. Employers want to see practical knowledge applied in interviews, not just how you learned to reverse a linked list in your Coursera mini module. Although they'll want to know that, too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2019, 05:13 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
6,226 posts, read 2,196,516 times
Reputation: 9717
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddm2k View Post
An autodidact and a college graduate will look at each other with a degree of (restrained or unrestrained) ridicule.
All three PhDs in my immediate family firmly agree that "college is a place where pebbles go to be polished and diamonds go to be dulled."

Quote:
In my opinion. OTJ (On-The-Job training) trumps both. You're paid to learn and learn to use an existing, productive implementation of a model that you'd encounter in the ivory tower.
I'd agree in most ways, but there are professions that need formal education on which to base on-the-job learning.

This also takes the viewpoint that education is for job purposes. While that belief is widespread now, I find it a tad narrow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2019, 05:20 PM
 
2,725 posts, read 680,978 times
Reputation: 3099
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
All three PhDs in my immediate family firmly agree that "college is a place where pebbles go to be polished and diamonds go to be dulled."


I'd agree in most ways, but there are professions that need formal education on which to base on-the-job learning.

This also takes the viewpoint that education is for job purposes. While that belief is widespread now, I find it a tad narrow.
I see your point.

When education is looked at as an investment with an expected ROI, it does often come with the expectation that it will qualify a person for higher earning potential.

I'm just blankly staring at all the employers that needlessly require "a bachelor's degree" (in anything) during a cold job market.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2019, 05:38 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
6,226 posts, read 2,196,516 times
Reputation: 9717
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddm2k View Post
When education is looked at as an investment with an expected ROI, it does often come with the expectation that it will qualify a person for higher earning potential.
It's precisely this vicious spiral that has exacerbated, if not caused many of our current problems.

Quote:
I'm just blankly staring at all the employers that needlessly require "a bachelor's degree" (in anything) during a cold job market.
And this is one of the results. Pointless qualification creep.

I have a long story about going to work for a very snotty architectural consulting firm, way back in the 80s, that literally made it a point of pride that their receptionist had a degree along with every other employee. But you talk about drawing blank stares today...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2019, 05:42 PM
 
16,407 posts, read 13,816,874 times
Reputation: 20390
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaraZetterberg153 View Post
Autodidacticism

Rather than sit in community college classrooms for five or six years, I thought I might attempt to teach myself the following subjects, using the internet and books (see complete list, below*):


What are the most commonly recommended books in these areas?
Anyone have any luck teaching themselves these subjects?
Wait you want to teach yourself these subject but you need someone else to recommend the books? Isn't that inherently not teaching yourself?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Education
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top