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.
I am in college right now and speaking on behalf on the small group of friends and acquaintances I know, STEM is the thing right now. The nursing, IT, computers, accounting, supply chain management etc... those are the hot majors, this is what everyone is studying. Asking some of them "Is accounting what you really want to do? Why are you interested in finance etc...?" Often the answer is "no, I really like anthropology but I know there is little chance of a job at the end so I have to major in something useful/practical".
My opinion on the matter:
I do not believe that the liberal arts are any less rigorous as the STEM fields. I do not believe that LA students are somehow less disciplined, less passionate, less intelligent than STEM majors, nor do I believe that those teaching LA are any less of a professor than the STEM professors. The problem I see is the employers are not hiring LA grads, or the LA grad will have to work much harder for that entry level job than the friend who majored in STEM.
When you have friends that majored in English or Sociology and are working in Starbucks or Shop Rite, compared to the Accounting or finance grad who is working for Sony in their finance division, or the IT grad working for Johnson and Johnson- of course that makes the LA major look bad. Students will ask themselves , "If all a Psych degree is going to get me is cashier at Khols, why should I major in it?"
Friends talk, students talk, if they see more of their LA friends get good jobs-non minimum wage jobs then they maybe they are more likely to go for a LA degree.
I am in college right now and speaking on behalf on the small group of friends and acquaintances I know, STEM is the thing right now. The nursing, IT, computers, accounting, supply chain management etc... those are the hot majors, this is what everyone is studying. Asking some of them "Is accounting what you really want to do? Why are you interested in finance etc...?" Often the answer is "no, I really like anthropology but I know there is little chance of a job at the end so I have to major in something useful/practical".
My opinion on the matter:
I do not believe that the liberal arts are any less rigorous as the STEM fields. I do not believe that LA students are somehow less disciplined, less passionate, less intelligent than STEM majors, nor do I believe that those teaching LA are any less of a professor than the STEM professors. The problem I see is the employers are not hiring LA grads, or the LA grad will have to work much harder for that entry level job than the friend who majored in STEM.
When you have friends that majored in English or Sociology and are working in Starbucks or Shop Rite, compared to the Accounting or finance grad who is working for Sony in their finance division, or the IT grad working for Johnson and Johnson- of course that makes the LA major look bad. Students will ask themselves , "If all a Psych degree is going to get me is cashier at Khols, why should I major in it?"
Friends talk, students talk, if they see more of their LA friends get good jobs-non minimum wage jobs then they maybe they are more likely to go for a LA degree.
While LA majors may not be less intelligent, less disciplined, etc. the average liberal arts program is not going to be as rigorous as the average STEM one. Even look at the hardest ones, philosophy (and subfields might as well be a hard science, formal logic for one) maybe history (?), compared to physics, and engineering. It isn't even close.
I am in college right now and speaking on behalf on the small group of friends and acquaintances I know, STEM is the thing right now. The nursing, IT, computers, accounting, supply chain management etc... those are the hot majors, this is what everyone is studying. Asking some of them "Is accounting what you really want to do? Why are you interested in finance etc...?" Often the answer is "no, I really like anthropology but I know there is little chance of a job at the end so I have to major in something useful/practical".
My opinion on the matter:
I do not believe that the liberal arts are any less rigorous as the STEM fields. I do not believe that LA students are somehow less disciplined, less passionate, less intelligent than STEM majors, nor do I believe that those teaching LA are any less of a professor than the STEM professors. The problem I see is the employers are not hiring LA grads, or the LA grad will have to work much harder for that entry level job than the friend who majored in STEM.
When you have friends that majored in English or Sociology and are working in Starbucks or Shop Rite, compared to the Accounting or finance grad who is working for Sony in their finance division, or the IT grad working for Johnson and Johnson- of course that makes the LA major look bad. Students will ask themselves , "If all a Psych degree is going to get me is cashier at Khols, why should I major in it?"
Friends talk, students talk, if they see more of their LA friends get good jobs-non minimum wage jobs then they maybe they are more likely to go for a LA degree.
This is totally true and I don't think anyone is arguing it. What people might conclude about LA majors/graduates is the decision process or judgement they used to pick an LA major. What were they thinking? Didn't they realize competition for professional waged jobs would be tough (regardless if we're in a recession or not)?
Oh, I heard about an engineering professor saying, probably about 40 years ago, that all engineering degrees should be written in disappearing ink, because if they didn't keep up to date, they would be out of a job before long. Yes, we don't have anyone doing punch cards anymore for computer programs, do we?
When I was punching cards no one told me the computers were all von Neumann machines. I have not touched a card in close to 30 years but this 7 inch tablet is a von Neumann machine. But it seems to me, good explanations of their workings are as hard to find as they ever were. There is just more software blather to wade through.
Get The Art of Electronics 2nd edition by Horowitz and Hill, chapter 10.
I agree. I have no idea why we're in love with the idea that everyone must go to college. I find putting everyone in classes that are intended for the college bound depressing. I can't teach the way I want to teach because the bottom can't/won't keep up. So I'm cutting material. Or maybe not. This is my last year teaching so I may just do it my way to a vengeance. The kids who do go on to college will thank me later.
I don't cut anything and you shouldn't either. If the bottom doesn't want to keep up, that's their problem. While some may have problems and you can adjust their assignments on an individual basis, you will do no favors by not teaching the way that is most beneficial to them and to you. If you teach at a higher level and they see you are serious, the students will adjust to compensate provided that it's not too too hard. I've seen it happen and I've done it..so I know it can work.
I do not believe that the liberal arts are any less rigorous as the STEM fields. I do not believe that LA students are somehow less disciplined, less passionate, less intelligent than STEM majors, nor do I believe that those teaching LA are any less of a professor than the STEM professors. The problem I see is the employers are not hiring LA grads, or the LA grad will have to work much harder for that entry level job than the friend who majored in STEM.
This is totally true and I don't think anyone is arguing it. What people might conclude about LA majors/graduates is the decision process or judgement they used to pick an LA major. What were they thinking? Didn't they realize competition for professional waged jobs would be tough (regardless if we're in a recession or not)?
The reason I think is because one is usually told "In college you can study whatever you want, pursue your passion and you will find a good job"- that passion whether it is Nursing or Engineering vs the music or sociology etc... does not matter people are just told pursue your passion (regardless of whatever the passion is) and you will be fine.
Also many still have the mindset that college degree (in anything)= white collar job. The thinking is "Ok maybe I won't get a job at the Museum of Natural History with my Anthropology degree, but I know I will find some sort of entry level data entry, customer service position etc.." They say that not knowing that even the low level office stuff is incredibly hard to get. How many "entry level jobs" has one seen that has "2-3 years experience in X ?"
1) They actually don't know how bloody tough it is out there-they actually DO NOT realize the competition for professional jobs
2) They are told, indoctrinated in the "Major in whatever you want and you will find work"
3) They are naïve and unrealistic
If I where to advise a high school grad or someone asking about what to major in college, I would strongly suggest to:
"Major in something marketable, practical whether it is your true passion or not does not matter as much as you think. I am sure there are engineers out there who would rather be doing something else, I am sure there are accountants who would have rather pursued the dream of his band making it big- but they are still good accountants and engineers nonetheless. Not everyone is going to get the dream job/end up doing what he/she truly wants to do and that is ok. As for the anthropology, the music, the English etc... pursue that as a minor"
In my view and yes I know many will disagree and I respect that, that's fine, in my view the point of college is to directly lead to a career (not taking the same Party city job you had in high school) and if the LA is no longer delivering on that, then why should I major in the liberal arts? In a sense I see college as almost a vocational type education that leads directly from A to B. The whole "learning for the sake of learning, art for art's sake, well rounded individual etc.. etc..." that's all well and good but I better be looking at more than minimum wage if I go that route.
Perhaps unrelated but in any case. The LA often, unfairly gets a bad rep. When you have the student that just wants to "coast for 4 years", show up and not really do anything etc... more than likely he/she will major in the liberal arts. You don't see many slackers decide to pursue a degree in biochem because "screw college I just want something easy". No doubt that yes there are slackers in the LA, but to then assume that every LA student is a slacker is there to "coast for 4 years" is unfair.
I don't cut anything and you shouldn't either. If the bottom doesn't want to keep up, that's their problem. While some may have problems and you can adjust their assignments on an individual basis, you will do no favors by not teaching the way that is most beneficial to them and to you. If you teach at a higher level and they see you are serious, the students will adjust to compensate provided that it's not too too hard. I've seen it happen and I've done it..so I know it can work.
I know this and you know this but my principal doesn't. He thinks you go deeper in chemistry by staying on topic longer (he says I'm a mile wide and an inch deep...which is funny given I teach LESS than was taught when I was in high school ). He doesn't get that to go deep, in science, often requires knowledge from several areas being pulled together. Cut one and you can't go any deeper.
What my students do is complain to the principal because they know their complaints will be heard. They know he'll come down on me for expecting too much of them. They tell him I go too fast and don't spend enough time on topic (yet they don't show up after school for tutoring sessions, go figure). I do, however, see them working to keep up for the most part and I do see them learning. They just don't like the pace. If I were tenured, I'd say "Tough". I'm not and I'm likely not to tenure. I've been told that unless parents and kids are praising me next year, I'm out and that is unlikely to happen on the heels of three years with the complaining I teach too much and too fast. Cutting content now might not even work.
I teach what I teach because I know I can start pulling it together and going deeper at the end of the year. My principal thinks you can go deeper in chemistry by just staying on each topic longer and cutting some topics out altogether. Needless to say, he has never taught chemistry.
I do agree that teaching higher results in students reaching once they accept that you're not kidding. Passing scores on the state tests increased 41% when I worked at a charter school only to return to the same level they had been at previously when I left. I was asked to leave BTW. I know what I do works. I know it's best for my students but it's not popular and too many schools just want happy students and parents. I know my current school does.
Last edited by Ivorytickler; 07-11-2013 at 06:35 AM..
I don't cut anything and you shouldn't either. If the bottom doesn't want to keep up, that's their problem. While some may have problems and you can adjust their assignments on an individual basis, you will do no favors by not teaching the way that is most beneficial to them and to you. If you teach at a higher level and they see you are serious, the students will adjust to compensate provided that it's not too too hard. I've seen it happen and I've done it..so I know it can work.
I agree with you, but...
There's a problem with ignoring the lower level students. They are the ones that can show the most gains on standardized tests. The upper level students - while making high scores - show the least gain. And since the "gain" is a part of our (TN) evaluation process, you find many teachers catering to the lower level. If they are predicted to make 10% on the test but you can get them up to 20%, that's great! They still failed, but they made great gains. OTOH, a student predicted to make 99% misses one question by shear happenstance makes a 97%. That one is great, but actually brings your "gains" down and hurts your evaluation.
I know it's stupid, but this is what we have to deal with. So I've seen teachers cheer at getting a class full of what I have affectionately called the "sweat-hogs" or students with IEP'S.
Now the argument might be made that keeping the standards/materials/content high in the class helps bring up those on lower end - that they will rise to the challenge. In my experience, this rarely works. For some, they'll try, but most won't.
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.
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.
). He doesn't get that to go deep, in science, often requires knowledge from several areas being pulled together. Cut one and you can't go any deeper.
