×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Standardised testing.
14

Standardised testing.

Standardised testing.

(OP)
This was the commencement speech by the  valedictorian at a  high school.
This was the grandson of a friend of mine. Whilst at that age kids know everything, non the less I think he had some valid points about todays education system.  Note the principal cringing from time to time in the lower right hand corner of the screen..
B.E.

You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.

RE: Standardised testing.

If he really scored beyond everyone (going all through standardized testing) then he deserved the right to speak and is entitled to criticize the same rules that allowed him to climb and be in due position to militate for new rules/system ;
If he did not score that at the top, then I don't care that he got valid points - I would simply not listen to him because it would be too easy.

R. Feynmam has also said : Things are learned to be unlearned.

RE: Standardised testing.

I know the grandfather is proud, but I think the principal is proud as well, in spite of being a bit uncomfortable.

RE: Standardised testing.

No doubt he is the valedictorian of that High School. Several references in his speech, including Yeats, that indicate he is very well read for a HS Student.

RE: Standardised testing.

Spectacular. I admire his forthrightness. Hopefully gets some chins wagging at the least. It's not an easy thing to fix, but realising the problem is the first step. I did like the galvanisation with teachers, many of whom feel hamstrung by having to teach to the tests.

RE: Standardised testing.

Meh, having been educated in a system that relied heavily on standardized testing I'm not entirely convinced on the 'sky is falling' aspect.

However, he did make some good points relating to not everyone being as academically gifted as others in some of the fields some in academics seem to glorify.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: Standardised testing.

Where were you KENAT? We were streamed after the 1st year so that only the top 1/6th were entered for 'O' Levels. Maybe the GCSE changed all that. I doubt it.

- Steve

RE: Standardised testing.

Hampshire took GCSE's in 1994 just when they'd introduced the A*, though the second half of my education was at a non state school. No real streaming during my schooling until GCSE at which in a couple of subjects (math & maybe science) they had different difficulty levels of exam. In math the class got split into 2 based on ability but there were 3 tiers of paper as I recall. I was the only person that took the top level of paper and encountered a couple of questions that I didn't recall having been covered in the class. Fortunately taking the 'difficult' paper I only had to get a fairly low % to get an A. If you took the middle paper you had to get almost perfect to get an A and if you took the basic paper even if you got 100% I don't think you could get an A. Alternatively though, if I didn't get a high enough score to be at least a C - something ridiculously low like 20% or some such - then I'd have outright failed.

That said, in my earlier schooling the 'table's' within each class were sorted based on ability and occasionally that meant getting slightly different teaching.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: Standardised testing.

The sorting in US high schools is through honors and AP (advanced placement) classes. College Calculus 1 is now split into two years, AB and BC, but it used to be a one year class. That's assuming that the high school offers AP classes at all.

Getting a passing grade (3 or higher) on the AP exam will often get you college credit. Take enough of them, and you could skip an entire year of college, assuming you can get the classes you need for your major.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Standardised testing.

Yes, the AP classes are a tremendous boon to those with the aspiration and resolve. AS IRstuff alluded to, many high schools still do not offer them. I know for certainty my own path would have differed greatly had they been available. So for all of the shortcomings of the current public education system, there are definite bright spots, as well.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

RE: Standardised testing.

They didn't have "AP" as a standardized bunch of high school classes and tests when I was in high school in TX. But I DID take college level Physics I, Chemistry I as a junior; then Calculus, Physics II, Chemistry II, English Honors as a senior. Those, with placement tests after getting into college, gave me 38 credit hours towards the engineering course requirements when I enrolled as a "freshman" the next fall.

Not everything counted directly to the final degree, but I did have 96 credit hours after two years, so that helped to get me out in 4 years with a nuke eng degree with a little bit lighter load my senior year.

RE: Standardised testing.

In some respects, the lack of AP classes is a form of the haves and have-nots, since you wouldn't necessarily have an AP class offering in a school where only 5 students could, or would, take the class, compared to the US News Top 1000 schools, where the schools are ranked by how many AP tests were taken as a percentage of school population. Even schools that are supposedly geared to the same populations have radically different distributions:

School T has ~120 students taking AP Comp Sci 2, and ~60 students doing International Baccaleaurate (IB) and AP
School V has ~10 students taking AP Comp Sci 2, and maybe 6 students doing IB/AP

Both compete for the same demographic, but School T draws from the entire SoCal region, while School V only draws from its city. And School V's raison d'etre seems to be to keep its city's students from transferring to School T, since that means the state dollars go with the students.

Other schools claim to make everyone take at least 14 AP exams (I think, mainly to get into the US News Top 100), but when you can find the score distributions, no more than ~60% get 3's, while School T has a bad year if less than 60% get 5's (5 is the max score on AP exams). These are in contrast with other schools that might not have any AP or IB programs, so someone who is capable and qualified to do so, can't. There were a number of students going to School T that spent an hour on the road, each way, every day to attend, but not everyone has parents that have that much freedom and time.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Standardised testing.

Quote (ornerynorsk)

So for all of the shortcomings of the current public education system, there are definite bright spots, as well.

It's a good point to make, and not having been educated in America it's nice to hear of some of the positive details. From a world perspective though, there's a worrying trend that seems to be directed towards de-valuing precisely these positive traits that have been highlighted in this thread. Pasi Sahlberg, Finland's Education Director, has coined it the Global Education Reform Movement, GERM. I think it is best summarised in the vernacular used by Bush, the No Child Left Behind policy. If that becomes your guiding principle, then these "AP" classes don't make sense. If you need to show no child is falling behind, then we must all be tested to the same yardstick and the emphasis naturally then tends towards reaching a threshold on that yardstick. That's hardly a lofty goal for national education.

The problem is that the GERM or NCLB principles run counter to the inherent benefits to society that prevalent education brings. A nation of "satisfactory" achievers in a handful of fields that some committee considers worthwhile today, turns into a sorry story a generation later. Compare that with a generation that has been exposed to a variety of fields, encouraged to excel in disciplines in which they show aptitude, and feel empowered to show creativity and individuality in even the mundane fields. In essence, dumbing down education to make sure everyone achieves the same baseline does very little for the education of a nation.

RE: Standardised testing.

I don't think the NCLB means that everyone needs to be treated the same. There are not enough jobs for everyone to be a physics or math major, or that everyone MUST go to college. College Physics 1 is a "weeder" class that is made sufficiently hard to discourage all but the most fanatical from pursuing physics. My roommate, who started freshman year thinking he was going to be a physics major, declared English Lit as a major afterwards.

NCLB should mean that no person is so poorly educated that they can't perform in any job, or to even calculate their own salary. Standards are often wacky; the US News college list has encouraged some schools to require that every student take something like 14 AP exams, whether or not they wanted to, or cared to, or were even planning on going to college. Nevertheless, there are some minimum standards that everyone must be capable of, like being able to read, or being able to figure out one's own salary. These standards do not mean that everyone should be, or would be, taught only those two things, because we still need people to figure out satellite orbits and so forth.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Standardised testing.

One problem with education is that those who argue about what's best can only draw from a sample of one: their own. It's quite rare to hear someone complain about their own education and suggest how it could have been given to them better. The kid's speech posted does just this - very refreshing.

Of course my (UK, '79-'86) high school education was perfect winky smile We potential scientists and engineers had double maths physics and chemistry rammed down our young throats long before anyone mentioned "college". We started university, essentially committed to a "major" from day 1. Most just extrapolated what they'd focused on for the last two years of high school.

The divisive, selective school system with its killer exam at 11 to decide who succeeded and who failed in life had been abolished in favour of leveling Comprehensive schools for all ... which streamed kids into losers and succeders anyway. The better kids managed to get into the few remaining schools from the selective era (Grammar schools), where two more years of education beyond the mandatory 16 yrs of age was the norm rather than the exception. It doesn't sound too different from the US system, just that the problems, goals and solutions have different acronyms.

- Steve

RE: Standardised testing.

Quote (IRstuff)

Nevertheless, there are some minimum standards that everyone must be capable of, like being able to read, or being able to figure out one's own salary.
No argument there, and my mistake if that's what NCLB pertains to. The subject of the speech was secondary school standardised testing, and that's my interest. If primary school has been effective, then reading, writing and arithmetic are givens and we're in the game of specialisation and refinement. That's the point where mandatory levels of competence become a little disingenuous.

RE: Standardised testing.

Actually, sample of 3, me and my two sons. winky smile

Part of that argument, of course, is that those that have samples of the other kind are mostly not going be in this forum, except by proxy or by Youtube. There have been studies: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S37/75/... that suggest that poverty alone can adversely affect cognitive performance, so even if those schools were a School T or even a School V, they, as a collective whole, might not be able to take advantage of them.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Standardised testing.

Wow! That link reads like a study aimed at proving an in-going assumption. That poor people are inherently stupid. That "mental bandwidth" (to use their phrase) can actually be lost through wasting it on mundane basic survival tasks. Only the idle (idle rich) have enough spare time to be intelligent.

Some say the reverse is often true. The downtrodden have to fight harder, not having been handed things on a plate. Aspiring to, not expecting success.

- Steve

RE: Standardised testing.

(OP)
Something Guy
My education in a UK school was at the leading edge of that, "self leveling comprehensive school system". In 1953 I had just passed the 11+ examination, My parents had given me a new bicycle as a reward and all was rosy . Then the government dropped a bomb on us, our grammar school was being combined with a local secondary modern school to form an experimental school. A BILATERAL COMPREHENSIVE school. Say what?
At age 12 I was having a hard time with schoolwork. my father was "helping me" with my homework , and he and I were practically coming to blows. My teacher did not help, when he wrote on one of my homework sheets " Hey Ken ( my dads name) your quadratic equation’s are getting better." over the next 3 years I did less foreign language, I had been studying French, and German. More Math and more metalwork. English was my worst nightmare, as I left, I remember my teacher saying ," how do you think you are going to get through life not knowing how to write properly." I look at some of the paperwork I get today, and think I am better than this, maybe my teacher did a better job than I thought, even though she did complain about my run on sentences.
When I left school I took an apprenticeship with one day of college and 3 nights in my own time. because I wanted to make things, not shuffle papers, and remember according to my teacher I could not write.
B.E.

You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.

RE: Standardised testing.

IRstuff: I didn't say genetically stupid, just inherently. The study suggests poverty leads to stupidity - the two are inseperable.

B.E.: We never even got a whiff of the 11+ in the late 70's, although I believe it was still in operation in nearby Plymouth and is still today. Some kids freeze at exams and I understand this was quite a biggie for an 11-year-old.

- Steve

RE: Standardised testing.

I took the 11+ in 70 or 71, in Kent. I think a couple of years they went fully comprehensive, but by then we'd moved to Avon which had been fully comp for years. So I ended up doing 2 years of (publicly system) Grammar and then served the rest of the sentence at a private school.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Standardised testing.

I think the bar is set pretty low in US high schools. My boys get decent grades but they never do homework at home; they somehow manage to do it all at school! It's interesting to note that most high school teachers believe their students are well-prepared for college. Most college educators, however, don't think that incoming students are ready for college-level work.

Tunalover

RE: Standardised testing.

The poverty effect is not permanent. Once the stressor is removed, performance improves, much like teflon cold flow, unless stress beyond yield limit.

The bar is low in SOME schools. At the schools I described, students are expected to do extremely well in college. But, parental expectations are equally high; these parents expect to have their students competitive into HYP, MIT, Caltech, etc. While much blame has been heaped onto the schools, the fault for failures is similar to engineering failures in that there's invariably more to the story. Parents are critical to the process; while we are not "tiger" dad and mom, we have high expectations of our kids, and B's are only barely tolerable. We expect to know when our children are struggling and we apply resources to deal with it. If the class is too easy, we demand additional homework, or we apply our own homework.

T, what are you doing about the lackadaisical teaching at your school? I'm a bit perturbed that you seem to accepting the status quo as if this was something you have no control over. It seems to me that harder classes ought to be available, or harder schools, or just give them more to do. If you, or any other parent, aren't going to look after your kids' future, who will? If the school (or an employee) fails, is that not a management problem, and are the parents not part of the management?

I have no doubt that some schools have low bars, but there are those that don't:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_High_School_(...)
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/...
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/...

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Standardised testing.

Whan I studied a 'B' was good grade and an 'A' was outstaing. Only a few got an 'A' grade. Today a 'B' is slightly better than failure and everyone gets an 'A'. The brighter ones get an 'A*'. The kids with 'A*' aren't as smart as the ones who got an 'A' when I studied, and that ripples through the whole education system. Grades are higher, but any given grade is easier to achieve and worth less than 30 years ago.

I had a rant about this in another thread a month or two ago and a few folks missed a key point: it's not the kids fault, because they are trying their best to succeed in a system which is broken. The problem is the system itself.

It's an interesting speech, and he's clearly above-average smart.

RE: Standardised testing.

Which specific school?

Here in the UK every year's results are "better" than the previous. Grade inflation is a fact across the board. But grades only have a very short shelf life, so their inflation is only really a problem if you don't use them quickly. The problem is when everyone gets an A in everything (there is no "11" on the amplifier, no 110% effort). Our universities are making noises about reintroducing their own entrance exams.

- Steve

RE: Standardised testing.

... I'm wrong. There is an 11 now. A* is after my time but it is the same. So much for my weak Spinal Tap joke. Interesting figures for the last 20 or so years are here: A Levels 1993-2013.

- Steve

RE: Standardised testing.

Well, there's an 11 in the US, but it represents the level of difficulty associated with AP and honors classes, so they have a 0-5 GPA scale, while regular classes have a 0-4 GPA scale. I can't speak to all the schools in the US, but the ones I've personally seen seem to still take grading very seriously, as do the College Board, Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, and SATs.

Admittedly, the US is still the home of "Johnny Can't Read," hence NCLB and Common Core.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Standardised testing.

Which specific school country? The UK.

When the old GCE ('O'-level) and CSE exams were abandoned in the mid 1980s and replaced by the GCSE (general collapse of secondary education) the GCSE 'C' was notionally equivalent to an 'O'-level pass. As the requirements to achieve any given grade have dropped over the last 30 years, a 'B' is barely an 'O'-level pass.

I agree Steve - the A* grade is the new A-grade. It is now so easy to get an A-grade that it is impossible for the truly gifted kids to distinguish themselves from the mass. I don't see any purpose in an exam in which everyone scores top grades - the whole purpose of the exam is to pick out the the areas where some are strong and some are weak, to allow the kids to make choices based on what they can succeed at, and to allow employers and universities to select those who have the best skills fit for the course or job they are recruiting for.

RE: Standardised testing.

Berkshire,
Thank you for posting the video, I enjoyed listening to that intelligent young man express his opinions.

STF

RE: Standardised testing.

(OP)
Sparweb,
Thank you for that, I posted it here, because I though the young man had a better handle on his education than his teachers did.
I may be wrong, the teachers he had, may have managed to do a good job, in spite of the restrictions thrown at them, not because of them.
B.E.

You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.

RE: Standardised testing.

My son finishes grade 7 this month. The teachers that surround him have such a tremendous impact on his attitude toward school, and I think everyone appreciates that fact. While some teachers are pretty useless, most know that the curriculum is a mixture of valuable knowledge and political BS. I'm not interested in the political debate that's been incited with your thread, though it's a good thing people are willing to talk about it. I just don't live in the US so none of the acronyms being bandied about make sense. I think that young man is showing himself to be a leader already, and I'm glad he's getting recognition for it.

STF

RE: Standardised testing.

2
Kid seems to have a good head on his shoulders and a will to think with the brain he was given. I hope his next handful of formative years sculpts him with the tools to get wherever he wants. Teenage spirit with a challenging attitude backed up with enough brains to establish support for his anti-authority arguments. I like it :)

He has many good points. I'm a result of a family that thought "You have to have a degree to win in the world" but was lucky enough to not be of a recent age where degrees can actually drown you before you learn to swim in the world, sometimes becoming an anchor rather than a life-preserver.

There is a whole lot wrong with the academic world in the USA. It's become more and more of an uphill struggle for the most vulnerable and formative times in our (as people) young lives. Core curriculum fades as general-education requirements rise. Prices rise dramatically. The universities and colleges are becoming a predatory institution rather than a next-level greenhouse for growing specimen.

Our culture still maintains the attitude that "vocations" and "technical fields" are a lesser-class industry. It isn't until people are in their mid 20s to 30s, I find, that people start to notice how NOT inferior those in the technical and vocational fields are. Younger engineers who got into the field for money/status inhumanly shun plumbers and electricians are finding that with 5 years experience that the man who just snaked their toilet and plumbed a new half-bath made more money per hour than their equivalent salary.

In high school "vocational school" and alternate programs for welding/machining/automotive-tech/carpentry/plumbing/electricity are all treated like "special ed" or at least the "not smart enough for 'real' classes" students.

I hope it's changed, there there is confirmation-bias in my view that makes me blind to the change, but I still perceive this as being the truth. I hope it's changed.

When no one wants to be a plumber/electrician, we'll all sit in a hot, dark summer house, with a toilet that won't flush.

Our schools are not tailored toward the real world and are not tailored toward serving the people they are cultivating. Our culture does not support the change required. Some people are speaking/lobbying for these changes and I hope they come soon.

Most of all, relevant to this crowd, I would love to see a bachelor's degree be worth more than it currently is. I'd like to see less "general education" requirements and more core-curriculum classes. I appreciate the education of people on politics, geography, history, literature, etc, but to /require/ it at great expense in order to get a career-required degree is almost extortion. More importantly, it waters down our degree programs which have a limitation on credit-hour requirements to get a Bachelor or Master degree.

_________________________________________
Engineer, Precision Manufacturing Job Shop
Tool & Die, Aerospace, Defense, Medical, Agricultural, Firearms

NX8.0, Solidworks 2014, AutoCAD LT, Autocad Plant 3D 2013, Enovia DMUv5

RE: Standardised testing.

JNieman, your last paragraph is similar to how it's set up in the UK (or at least was in the late 90's) for engineering & most subjects. Some on this forum though regard a focused technical degree without the well rounding as being effectively a trade school education.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: Standardised testing.

If the objective were to crank out work drones, then yes, a focussed education might make sense. However, I don't think that high school age students can generally appreciate something like Art History, albeit, it's arguable that I was able to appreciate it when I took it sophomore year.

I think the education goals are correct, it's just that the price tag has gotten out of whack with the starting salaries. When I graduated from college, my private college tuition cost was 20% of my starting salary. The current tuition at the same school would cost about 50% of a similar starting salary today.

Income inequality, blah, blah, etc.; the bottom line is that the ratio of tuition cost to starting salary has nearly tripled in 35 yr. If starting salaries kept up with tuition increases, they would be on the order of $189k today, which obviously means I'm not keeping up with this inflation, either.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Standardised testing.

"... I'm wrong. There is an 11 now. A* is after my time but it is the same. So much for my weak Spinal Tap joke. Interesting figures for the last 20 or so years are here: A Levels 1993-2013. "

Hey, at least the trend isn't inflationary for Welsh! :D

...out of the whole 3 years listed...

RE: Standardised testing.

I didn't have an appreciation for art history when I was in high school, didn't have it throughout my college days, and I never seemed to have gained an appreciation for it since those days. It means nothing to me. I enjoy certain pieces/styles of art, but the history of it is utterly useless to me... could I have replaced my classes in such drivel with something more appropriate to my major of choice, I would have done so in a heartbeat. And I have no doubt that knowledge would have carried me 10x farther than anything I have long since forgotten about something like art history. And no, it did not make me a more well-rounded person to be forced to take those classes, proof in point that I could not remember a single fact "taught" to me in that manner.

Dan - Owner
http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

RE: Standardised testing.

Like you. poke

rofl2

RE: Standardised testing.

(OP)
Keep it clean guys, play nicely together.
B.E.

You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.

RE: Standardised testing.

Ok, I'm sorry. I missed off '... and me' from that comment. smile

RE: Standardised testing.

KENAT - ... Some on this forum though regard a focused technical degree without the well rounding as being effectively a trade school education....

JNeiman - ... I'd like to see less "general education" requirements and more core-curriculum classes. ...

JNeiman - ... people start to notice how NOT inferior those in the technical and vocational fields are...

Exactly why I didn't want to venture into the "politics" of this subject. The real problem, IMHO, is that universities have been turning out tradesmen by the millions for years, but nobody's noticed, maybe just because the school had the word "university" printed on the application form. There are many forces that support this, such as snobbery, greed, narrow-mindedness, and class-ism.

I do wonder if enough people really know what a university should be, and what sets it apart from a trade school. If they attended a university for the sole purpose of getting a job, then they probably don't. It took a lot of work, over generations, to warp universities into schools that teach trades, so the blame doesn't belong in just one place.

My worst education came from a university. Not because of the general education parts of the curriculum, but because the core-curriculum was so badly focused because that university did not know what it wanted to be. It was trying to be a center for research, social justice and even political debate, but then put its intelligent staff to work teaching its students technical practices by rote. Educational goals set by industry feedback. Further complicating the problem as that the institution relied upon a 50% attrition rate in the first year and 30% attrition in year 2 to make up budget shortfalls. The students that I knew who washed out were the most creative and intelligent people I had ever met in my life (at the time) and the ones that clung on to finish were worker drones. I went along with it because I didn't know any better at that age.

Enough. I just get p'd off when I get started about this subject.

STF

RE: Standardised testing.

I think you miss the point. An eloquent contributor to this site claimed that an engineering degree with no basket weaving component was just a trade school. Those of us who attended university in countries where that is the norm have taken to wearing it as a badge of pride.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Standardised testing.

Greg,

I think I did just say that many Universities have been trying to emulate trade schools, and doing poorly at it to boot. The constant tension between trade education desired by industry versus the goal of a rounded, profound education, as would benefit society's leaders, is causing a kind of schizophrenia in these institutions. I witnessed it first-hand, and so did most of my friends, and it wasted years of my life. My own experience is from Canada, though I think the US is little different, but I can't comment on Europe or abroad. University here is, sadly, much like your portrayal in your second sentence. Very few people seem to appreciate a well-rounded university education (mentioned in your third sentence), and they are particularly hard to come by in North America. It took me until I was in my 30's to figure it out for myself. Then it was too late.

Again, it is a subject that raises my ire because it wastes the money and time of thousands of people going to university, when a trade level education is what they really want, and wastes the taxpayers' money paying for universities that have forgotten how to mold citizens who have the opportunity and talent to lead our society. I only spoke up, because the young man in the speech that started this off seems to have the wit to succeed despite all of these countervailing forces. But he will encounter the same conformist and anti-educational obstacles that he has already overcome in high school, when he does go to university.

"badge of pride"?

Figure this one out then: I have concealed my university education from my last 3 employers. I focused on my so-called "trade school" education instead. The work I do benefits from the real education I received from two technical colleges. That's what I wear with pride.
Would I conceal my university degree if I could point to it and show my technical qualifications? I wish it were, but it doesn't do that because my university was too incompetent to pass on much of that.
Would I conceal my university degree if it would show I am a well-rounded individual? Oh, if only. But the insanity of the school was so bad that it didn't give me that, either. The enrichment courses turned out to be more confusing than anything.

By trying to do both, the university I attended failed on both. If it had been one, or the other, then I would have succeeded, and not needed to re-start my education from scratch. I hope that makes my point more clearly.

STF

RE: Standardised testing.

KENAT. Have you noticed that the same two teams always make the final? And that they are mostly crewed by foreign students. Well, someone's got to fill those basket-weaving classes. winky smile (Smiley for the benefit of Mr Poe)

- Steve

RE: Standardised testing.

I'll try again, with bigger clues.

http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings...=

So #3 and #6 are trade schools. I think in 3 years I went to exactly 2 lectures that were not hardcore engineering, and in fact it is crying shame, I hadn't realised that students were welcome to attend lectures at other faculties.

Incidentally that is rather an odd list in my opinion, it just happened to be the first to come up.

Yes Kenat, our American PhDs seem to be less good at rowing than the other place's American PhD students, on average. Rolls eyeballs (I hate that side of it).

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Standardised testing.

I have no idea where that university ranking website gets its list of data, or what criteria it uses for ranking, but assuming Greg used his home location to search, all I see are ten universities, starting with the U of New South Wales, followed by 10 other "universities" (judging only by their names). The "University of Technology Sydney" sounds suspiciously like a technical college, despite its name. Prodding the search for the other continental groups just produces lists of more universities. The only two institutions that I can produce that don't have "university" in their name is MIT and Caltech. What was that supposed to prove?

Very well. Maybe I am missing the point, whatever it is. Since I chimed in about the trade school vs. university debate, and the OP subject is about standardized testing, then it's off-topic as well. But then, some may believe that the two subjects are closely linked, while others don't. Since I'm having trouble figuring out which group I'm talking to right now, I'll drop it. I should have just stuck to my earlier decision to stay out of the politics.

STF

RE: Standardised testing.

SparWeb, unfortunately Greg's link didn't auto load, but if you just go to 'change subject' and select "Engineering - Mechanical, Aeronautical & Manufacturing" per the text of link (no sorting by region or location) then I believe you get the nominal world wide list Greg was alluding to.

The underlying point that some of us have attempted to explain before, to other North American members that usually seem quite quick on the up take (smarter than I for sure) but don't seem to get this idea, is that in some countries, such as the UK, you generally go to university (even the ones founded back before the American colonies existed) to study just your subject.

Sure you may have an option of a few extra language classes, maybe one class covering relevant aspects of law, accounting & management etc. but by far you'll spend the majority of your time studying Engineering or a few directly related technical fields such as math(s) & physics which in turn form the foundation for higher level engineering classes.

In the UK - at least last century when I was being edumacated - the well rounding was to have been done by the time you reached age 16 ish at which point you'd take examinations in around 9 subjects. You'd then spend a couple of years somewhat more targeted study, in just 3-4 subjects/classes typically, culminating in examinations for each subject, before going onto university.

So to us this perception that if you aren't spending a good chunk of your time at university studying the history of rock & roll; psych 101 & art history... then you aren't really getting a 'university education' seems odd - verging on ivory tower educational establishment elitism.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: Standardised testing.

Ok that's reassuring. I thought I'd written something offensive. Actually I've just left too much out.

Different students want different things out of their post-secondary education. I personally think that an education that is directed toward skills to be used for employment is the domain of technical colleges, but if they want to, they can be so much more. A university engineering program that only teaches skills and not an engineer's place in society is just mimicking the trade school. Why should general education stop when one leaves secondary school? Take the word apart and see "univers-" inside it, as if to mean that there should be "universality" in that education. If it lacks that universality then why is it called a university?

I have experienced the best and worst of both, having attended a college where my science diploma was enriched with sociology, philosophy, politics and physical activity, and then a university where I learned few skills in the core courses but still had no time for enrichment. My college experience was good because the school was not trying to steer me toward a specific job. It was giving me a general education that would make me a better citizen whether I chose a trade or a degree. It was teaching me how to think.

Post-secondary schools of every stripe - college or university - can and should teach students to be better citizens, as much as practical. Universities could do it the best, with 4 undergraduate years to work with rather than just 2 or 3 like colleges do. Since I've been to a college that did this well, I don't understand why a university can't. When it comes to the long list of skills, then industry itself should step up and be there to teach. Anybody reading the other thread in this forum about student placements can see what a company can do to find the best and mold them into great engineers. And why it is profitable to do so. Wouldn't you want to train a graduate who has learned how to think? Rather than a graduate who only knows how to calculate?

If a technical school really wants to stay focused on specific trades or collections of skills in each program it offers, then the students that attend can figure this out in advance by simply looking at the syllabus. Those that want more can go somewhere else. But a university that narrows its focus to only the skills for a job is short-changing its students.

You've probably guessed that my ideas get little traction when I discuss them with colleagues. There is something about many engineers that turns many of them off to the humanities and the arts, even "pure" science like biology is an alien language to some. It may be that my views are warped by a poor university experience. Had it been better maybe I would wonder what the fuss is about.

As for the use of the word "elitism". It is elitist to think that one is entitled to a better education than others. It is not elitist to think that everyone would benefit from better education.

STF

RE: Standardised testing.

Greg,
That's not what I meant, but I seem to have insulted you.

Do you think I make my arguments out of prejudice? I attended not just one college, but three technical colleges, for the record, (I'll spare you all the complicated story of transfers and moving across country etc, and the university experience has faded to just a big bump in the road). They were all excellent educational experiences. They all expanded my horizons, not just in the engineering or technical sense.



STF

RE: Standardised testing.

2
By the yardsticks in use at the moment I guess I'm a trade-school kid. I don't care. smile

The counterpoint to SparWeb's view is that the folks studying the socio-political, art and business courses should take a few technical classes to ensure that they have a rounded view of the world. I'll see Satan skiing to work before that happens though.

RE: Standardised testing.

SparWeb,

Your arguments may not be made out of prejudice, but the words you choose have deeply ingrained meanings that vary from place to place. You are consigning those of us without minors in basket-weaving to be living out our days as manual labourers. Skilled perhaps, but not allowed or encouraged to think.

- Steve

RE: Standardised testing.

Oompa Loompas of science anybody?

Sparweb, honestly I think you make your comments mostly out of ignorance (somewhat ironically given what you're positing). Did you read anything but the last line of my post?

Let me try and say it again, the education system (not just university) is quite different in other places in the world, it can be difficult to get your head around - even having been with my stepson going through the US system all the way up to college there's still aspects I struggle to grasp - but on a site like this with members from all over the place it helps to keep that in mind as at least a possibility for the discrepancy in views & experience.

Universities such as Cambridge and Oxford teach a very wide range of subjects, and yet if you go there to study say mechanical engineering you'll spend nearly all your time studying mechanical engineering and directly related/foundational topics.

As to your 'engineers place in society' well that strikes me as pretensious nonsense, which I'd half expect from someone so obsessed with the humanitites...winky smile

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: Standardised testing.

I think "culture" even applies to engineering disciplines other that your own. Some random discipline might have a commonly used tool for them that may be applicable to your own needs. Up until about 20 years ago, there was never any need for mathematicians in a hospital, other than as computer programmers. Now, some leading edge research hospitals has staff mathematicians because many of the body's systems operate in concert to chaos theory.

We use a tool that was developed by NIH for looking at biological and x-ray imaging, but it works awesomely for some of our imaging needs.

While I didn't take psychology in college, that might have more quickly helped my understanding of how people work, since we, as engineers, are often baffled by the "logic inverters" used by management. My boss explained the basic concepts to me, when we were once faced by a set of seemingly nonsensical management decisions.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Standardised testing.

Wow,
I have some of the most intelligent and worldly minded members of the forum P/O'd with me now. I'm in a hole so I'd better stop digging.
It will take me a while to figure out what went wrong anyway. Maybe some finger-painting will help me think.

STF

RE: Standardised testing.

(OP)
SparWeb,
Its Ok I am not P/O'd with you, but then again I am not , one, of the most intelligent and worldly minded members on here.

By the current standards of this post I am most definitely a tradesman. Of course I have been called that from an early age.

I most vividly remember taking a brand new Television as a teenager with my father to a stately house, when it took two people to carry a TV bigger than 14". We walked up to the front door with this, to be met by the Butler. Who took one look at us, and said " tradesmen to the side entrance round there!" and he did not even say please.
B.E.

You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.

RE: Standardised testing.

I don't know about the others SparWeb but I'm not PO'd - I was a bit when it first came up in a previous post but frankly it's not worth me getting PO'd about.

It does puzzle me that I and my cohorts have been unable to explain the situation in a way that you and others can grasp but there you have it.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: Standardised testing.

I'm not intelligent or worldly minded. smile

RE: Standardised testing.

2
Firstly, as I’m coming into this conversation late, I’d be remised if I didn’t thank Berkshire for posting that video. It was incredibly stimulating and thought-provoking. I think I’ve missed the boat on the discussion about the content of the lecture but I’ll leave you with this comic.


Defining Terms
Now onto the topic at hand. It appears that the only people that are using “trade school” in any form of a derogatory sense are those that feel they are being “accused” of going to a “trade school”. I feel, and correct me if I’m wrong, Sparweb is merely using the term “trade school” to refer to institutions that focus solely on specialized technical knowledge/understanding and differentiating from institutions that require/encourage classes outside the specialized area. This can be further distilled down to “teaching how to do a job” and “teaching how to think”; I’ll use these terms from here on out, rather than the other loaded terms. Neither is inherently “better” than the other, as both aim to do two different things.

More Technical Education = Better Technical Understanding
It could be argued that “teaching how to do a job” creates better engineers (or whatever specialization you are going for) than “teaching how to think” does. Your classes are solely focused on your specialization and as such you have a heightened knowledge/understanding on the specific technical elements. Although I don’t necessarily agree with this (ex. I took an aerospace option but once entering the field, I ended up working in an unrelated area. My aerospace classes are about as useful to me in my day-to-day job as “basket-weaving” would have been), I don’t need to argue this to illustrate my point (and build off of Sparwebs). So let’s assume (incorrectly but nevertheless unimportantly) that I agree with the notion that institutions that “teach how to do a job” create better technical experts than institutions that “teach how to think” upon graduation. (the last caveat is important)

Some Additional Education in the Humanities = More Well-Rounded
Conversely, it could be argued that “teaching how to think” creates more well-rounded citizens than “teaching how to do a job” does (again, upon graduation). Immediately, this statement reeks of elitism as an extension of it can be interpreted as “people that go to institutions that “teach how to do” are worse citizens than people that go to institutions that “teach how to think””. However, this is no more elitist than to say “people that go to institutions that “teach how to think” are worse engineers than people that go to institutions that “teach how to do””. Furthermore, both these statements work off the same core assumption – the more formalized education one has in a subject, the better they will understand it. Either this statement applies to both arguments or it applies to neither. If we toss out this assumption then we must also toss out the conclusion that “more technical education one has, the better engineer they will become”. To apply it to one but not the other would be contradictory and rather hypocritical.

But I’ll go one further and address the argument “how does a class in art history (or music or “basket-weaving” etc.) make me a better citizen?”. A good citizen is one who is able to understand and appreciate the wants and needs of all members in a society, not just those that share common interests. To have a brief education in fine art allows one to understand and appreciate why it is important (and in some cases quintessential) to some people, even if they don’t share that mentality. This is important to reduces ignorance and prejudice, which is really the goal of any citizenry. Other classes, such as philosophy, ethics, anthropology, sociology, etc. have a more direct and obvious impact on being a more informed, more rational, more accepting citizen.

It should be noted that I would absolutely support and push for a scientific element being included in arts/business education. To quote Carl Sagan, “We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. This is a clear prescription for disaster”. Frankly, I believe that an understanding of cosmology feeds a sense of connectivity that forces people to be more accepting of one another.

General vs. Anecdotal Arguments
Before I get any anecdotal arguments that “I went to an institution that “taught how to do a job” and I consider myself an informed, rational, accepting citizen”, we need to understand that, again, that argument can cut both ways. X went to an institution that “taught how to think” and X consider herself/himself a strong, technical proficient engineer. Again, for one side to talk in generalities as the bases for their argument but then use anecdotes to attack the generalities of the other side is inconsistent. Either we agree to BOTH discuss in general terms or we must simply swap anecdotes until we are blue in the face.

The reason for these anecdotal “exceptions” to the rule is that in reality, we don’t study and live in vacuums where are only exposure to knowledge and experience. We are influenced by our culture, our family, our friends, our boss, our co-workers, our employer. Neither an engineer’s nor a citizen’s developing stops when they graduate. So part of the debate needs to be focused on when and where is the appropriate time to get this development. I will discuss this in more depth below.

What’s More Desirable: Better Technical Understanding or More Well-Rounded Citizen
This is the crux of the debate and the crux of the issue surrounding the purpose of education: is educated there to create pre-trained, ready-to-work employees or is education there to create a more well-rounded, informed, rational, accepting citizenry.

I am, rather obviously, in the latter camp. I feel that the desire to create pre-trained, ready-to-work employees is the result of the excessive influence corporations have on our government (through lobby groups/campaign contributions), culture (through advertising and the continued rise of a consumption-centric zeitgeist) and education (through threats of “employability”). Companies have developed a way to convince us all that they should not need to train their employees, that they should come pre-trained. Whether it’s asking for 4-years experience for entry level wages, demand for more H1B visas (where brilliant people can work for a fraction of what they should be making and become indentured servants as their legal status is tied to their employment) or the demolishing of internal training programs, this becomes more and more obvious. However, as obvious as these tactics are, we continually blame the education system for not producing grads that can do the job of a 5+ year veteran. We eat up the argument that it’s because “our education system has become diluted with “basket-weaving” classes”. We rely on the ubiquitous anecdotal arguments “back in my day, when I graduated, I already knew all this stuff!” to support this viewpoint. Each and every generation has said that the next generation is going to be the death of society. Each and every generation has been dead wrong on that front.

Beyond that, how could one possibly expect universities to pre-train students for their career path when the students cannot know where that career path will take them? Many careers that exist today did not exist 5-10 years ago. In addition, although company X and company Y produce the exact same widget, they produce them in completely different ways. The basic skills are transferable but the specifics are endlessly diverse. So, are people arguing that institutions that focus on “teaching how to think” do so many “basket-weaving” classes that students don’t learn the fundamentals? Are they seriously saying that any accredited school has, for example, a mechanical engineering degree that doesn’t teach heat transfer? If so, that is an issue with the accreditation program, not with the more general teaching philosophy of the school.

I argue that expecting the result of education to be to create pre-trained, ready-to-work employees is not just wrong but impossible. It’s wrong because the onus to train employees should sit with the employer, not the school (the onus is on the school to make trainable employees). It’s impossible because the school cannot possibly predict or know what specific skills each student will require in their career.

On the other hand, expecting the result of education to be to create a well-rounded, informed, rational, accepting citizenry is both more appropriate and more reasonable. It’s more appropriate because a formalized education is the only place where, as a society, we can expose students to a variety of different viewpoints and opinions that can counter the prejudices that can be developed through culture, family, friends and work. Sometimes these areas will be great at minimizing prejudices but in many cases, they are the source. Institutions that “teach you how to think” tend to be much more progressive and much more critical of the current establishment and dominate culture than any other institution. For example, academic law is largely centered around the criticism of practical law and exposing it’s prejudices and biases. This is essential for people to understand, especially when they grow-up in a privileged reference frame that is not exposed to or affected by the prejudices and biases in law, culture, business or government that adversely affect those in disenfranchised positions.

It’s more reasonable because the timing is ideal for students to understand these concepts. When a student enters post-secondary school, they are the optimal balance between quite mature but still open-minded (and the change in environment and expectation that comes with post-secondary education also aids in this). Any earlier and they might not have the ability to process the concepts and any later and they might be already too influenced by their surroundings.

A very valid argument is “why should we leave these concepts to be taught in post-secondary school, which not everyone will attend; shouldn’t they be taught in grade school instead?”. I agree with this in part although it’s important to realize this is not at all an argument for more technical specialization in university. I feel that grade school should do a much better job at teaching things like critical thinking, moral philosophy and how law impacts society, rather than rote memorization of facts (again, building on the concept of “teaching how to think” not “teaching how to do”). These are important concepts that help make a person a well-rounded citizen and shouldn’t be reserved only for those that go to post-secondary school. However, I feel these should be introductory as they are quite heavy for the average grade school student. Post-secondary school should build off these concepts in more depth, even if they are not central to the specialization. I should also add that I feel that there should be fewer financial (tuition costs) and cultural (biased testing) barriers for people entering post-secondary schools.

TL;DR
- Neither “teaching how to do” nor “teaching how to think” is inherently better than the other – both have their strengths
- It could be argued that “teaching how to do” produces better technical experts. But, by extension of that logic, it would also have to be argued that “teaching how to think” produces more well-rounded citizens. It’s both or neither.
- The question then becomes “do we want more technical proficient engineers upon graduation or more well-rounded citizens upon graduation?”
- I argue that as long as engineers have been adequately trained on the fundamentals, they can (and should) acquire the more specialized knowledge on the job. It’s impossible for schools to predict or know what specialized knowledge each student will need for their career.
- Students entering post-secondary institutions are prime candidates for developing a greater understanding of how to be a more well-rounded, informed, rational and accepting member of their society and post-secondary institutions are the prime institution to teach those lessons.
- Therefore, I feel that it is more important to focus on producing more well-rounded citizens upon graduation.

RE: Standardised testing.

Yet another apparently intelligent and erudite member who misses the point myself and others have tried to make.

By your definition rconner

Quote (rconner 30 Jun 14 17:35)

...using the term “trade school” to refer to institutions that focus solely on specialized technical knowledge/understanding and differentiating from institutions that require/encourage classes outside the specialized area.

Implies, that pretty much anyone that was educated in the UK, including at institutions like Oxford & Cambridge, went to trade school.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: Standardised testing.

I agree. A rounded engineer should look outside of the core topics. The art of précis, for example. A dying skill.

- Steve

RE: Standardised testing.

... and, err: winky smile

- Steve

RE: Standardised testing.

"“teaching how to do a job”"

The general consensus is that almost no university, or college, does that, at least, for engineering. Many, including the graduates, have complained about this, about how woefully unprepared new grads are to start doing real work.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Standardised testing.

KENANT, the three words previous to where you started your quote ("SparWeb is merely...") will help you understand how you missed my point. I was paraphrasing what I believed SparWeb's definition was. I specially chose not to use those words because I don't think they were accurate. I don't consider Oxford to be a "trade school" but a school "focused solely on a specific technical understanding/knowledge" for engineering; the latter was the definition that I ran with. Furthermore, I went on to say that neither is inherently better. No one is attacking Oxford or Cambridge (or any other school for that matter), I (and I believe SparWeb) are merely trying to develop an argument for why "basket-weaving" classes are important (which are constantly ridiculed on these forums). I'd love to hear your thoughts on that aspect of my argument.

SomptingGuy, haha well played. Perhaps you'd like to skip to the very bottom of my post. Brevity has never been a strong suit of mine, nor has it been a goal (despite the fact I know how much eng-tips loves pithy one-liners! :)).

IRstuff, that speaks to SparWeb's point that currently universities try to do both (pre-trained and well-rounded) and fail at both. I would agree with this point however I feel that the solution isn't less "soft-skill" classes but a refocusing on what the goal is. I presented two alternative directions of that focus and argued in favour for one of them.

RE: Standardised testing.

rconner, what can I say I come in to this with the history that Greg alluded to. I did actually try to read your entire post but admit by the last couple of paragraphs was struggling and skimmed it some. Still not seeing how I missed the point but maybe I can't see for the giant chip on my shoulder.

I've mentioned before that I wonder if concepts of well rounded liberal arts education invented when only a very small proportion of the population went to university and most subjects only had so much depth really make sense in a time when a much larger % of the population go onto uni and many fields have incredible depth of existing knowledge.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: Standardised testing.

One other way of looking at it is if the US system produces an engineer with as much technical depth as the old UK 3 year degree, then at most the US graduate, after 4 years, has the additional equivalent of a first year liberal/arts general course.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Standardised testing.

Except, according to the equivalency review I had done of my UK education based on my A-levels (end of high school exams) alone I was at sophomore (2nd year) level of US system. Based on that it's perhaps more a case that well rounding is done by the end of secondary school and/or A-levels are at least partially equivalent to some of the Advanced Placement courses at US high schools.

I find it quite hard to compare the systems, there's no doubt my step-son had some classes which covered stuff not touched on in my UK education. For instance his high school geometry class covered stuff I don't think I'd ever seen at school even thru university.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: Standardised testing.

I think what we in the US call International Baccalaureate at the high school level is supposed to be equivalent to A-level. This seems to be the trend that's been going on for the last couple of decades or so. The IB classes are comparable to AP classes and there are 6 exams to pass to get the Diploma.

My son's high school has both AP and IB and took 13!! exams junior and senior year. He entered college with 71 credits out of 162 needed to graduate. His college humanities classes:

ANTHRO 003AC INTRO SOC/CULT AC
PHILOS 001B READ & COMP PHILOS
MUSIC 108M PERCEPT COGNITION
PHILOS 141 PHIL GAME THEORY
MUSIC 044 VOICE CLASS

Everything else was engineering related. But, I think this is not even remotely typical, given that the average college student takes 4.8 yrs to graduate.

While we ponder the ins and outs of the educational system, we have to apportion some of the blame/credit to both parents and the general culture. In the US, sports is still king; my neighbors delayed their son's entry into kindergarten so that he would be competitive in sports whereas we were interested in getting our son in as soon as mathematically possible. The hours spent in Pop Warner, etc., are hours not spent studying. Obviously, too much studying can be detrimental, but I find US culture and most parents to be somewhat anti intellectual and anti education, despite what any other metrics might show. Given the lack of "push" and expectations from parents, why should children excel in STEM, when fathers are only interested in bragging about touchdowns or home runs scored?

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Standardised testing.

I suppose I'm starting to understand that American phrase: "College Degree" now. A degree in going to college.

- Steve

RE: Standardised testing.

If you love conspiracies, I think there's a conspiracy to drive up the number of college grads in an attempt to push down salaries. Open any new source, and there'll be an article talking about all the great jobs to be had if you major in CompSci, or Business, or whatever, but there aren't really that many jobs, and I think most people wind up in college without a real clue about what they want to do. I think most people simply hear, "go to college" without the rest of the context, so they major in unemployable majors like Psych, and wind up working in a $30k job trying to pay off a $200k loan.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Standardised testing.

I wonder how much of a scam all the figures about 'college grads earn X times as much as highschool grads' are.

If they are based on historical data where less people went to college then can they actually be extrapolated forward with any confidence?

Sure folks retiring now that have a college degree may have earned a lot more than non college grads the same age but what proportions of the population went to college 40+ years ago?

In the field my wife's existing bachelors is in a lot of the jobs nominally requiring a bachelors degree may not even pay 2X minimum wage. Also at least some of these jobs didn't require a bachelors when she first entered the field. Do they require it now because highschool &/or associates don't give applicants the required education, or has the job changed slightly so it needs more education, or is it just based on availability of all these folks with a bachelors...

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: Standardised testing.

Recently read else where on the Internet:

"To be minimally fair, a good high-school education is still essential, and college is (if you're lucky) where you go to get one."

old field guy

RE: Standardised testing.

The US median income of $51k (2012) is only about 3.2x minimum wage wage, and that's for a household of 4. For certain fields, like most of engineering, that's the starting salary. So, college does get you a better salary, but only in certain fields, which most students shy away from, given that the most popular major is still psych, or something like it.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Standardised testing.

There was an article I read recently that looked at the CBA for various degrees/professions, and compared them with non university outcomes.

Thirty or more years ago an engineering had a huge multiplier compared with most degrees, it is still ahead, but not by as much.

This is not that article but covers much the same ground

http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues/...

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Standardised testing.

rconnor,
Thank you for your well through-out contribution. You've managed to explain what I couldn't. I knew when I started that I was going against the grain, but my opinion is the product of years of thought, and discussion with friends and family. It reassuring to see that a logical analysis, from a different perspective, can remove the perception that it is biased by elitism or prejudice.

IRstuff,
I had a similar advantage entering university, and skipped a large part of first year going in because of prior credit. It did not help me deal with the absent instructors, underfunding, or bureaucracy, which I cited as my main obstacles. But different institutions can have radically different cultures so your son may (if he is lucky) not have to overcome these hurdles. Rather, the diversity in his education so far may make him a much better student and he'll get more out of it than the average work-work student.

It seems the thread has moved on to bashing US education in general. I won't participate in that so I'm still done with it.

I do want to leave with a positive note: I believe that today's society has never been in better hands than with the GenX'ers that are now taking the reins from the boomers, and that western culture will do even better when the torch is handed to the Gen-Y generation that is starting to leave post-secondary schooling now.

STF

RE: Standardised testing.

Greg - Nice article. It would be interesting if they also broke out the non-Bachelor's concentrations - at the very least, breaking out the "trades" (Plumbing, electrical, etc) from just working a cash register.

RE: Standardised testing.

rconner "I don't consider Oxford to be a "trade school" but a school "focused solely on a specific technical understanding/knowledge" for engineering; the latter was the definition that I ran with."
And yet despite this 'focus solely on a specific knowledge of engineering', somewhere between 20% to 30% of UK engineering graduates somehow know enough about 'how to think' to get jobs outside engineering, notably in finance, the law, etc.

IRstuff "I have heard/read that some countries are supposedly less creative than the US, specifically because of their educational philosophies."
Oddly enough I've heard that UK engineers/scientists are also considered rather more creatve than some of their overseas colleagues, presumably despite our system not teaching them 'how to think', but only 'how to do'.

As other Brits have said, I think maybe our system attempts to do the 'rounding' a bit earlier than the US system - perhaps why we can't compete with Asian countries at secondary level maths, but they still come to us for the expertise, and yes, creativity of our engineers.

RE: Standardised testing.

20% to 30% ?

More like 70%+ of my class of '90 ended up in some form of think-related non-engineering employment.

- Steve

RE: Standardised testing.

In 1990 70% of my course didn't come back for start of the second year. sadeyes

The survivors largely went in to engineering-related roles after graduation, at least early in their careers. I lost touch with most as I was living out of a suitcase a couple of years later, so I have no idea what they are doing now.

RE: Standardised testing.

SparWeb, thanks. I was merely building off your argument. I think you made a lot of key points.

Debaser, are you suggesting that someone with an engineering degree (only) can work as a lawyer or accountant in the UK? I don’t know the standards of qualification that well for British lawyers and accounts but I’d venture a guess and say that they can’t. They’d need to return to school to do a law or finance degree. In which case, I have no idea how that is an argument against, or for, my position.

KENAT, I appreciate your efforts to clarify your position and try to understand mine. The key thing is that I’m not trying to say a technical focus is bad as much as I’m trying to defend the inclusion of some humanities. Thus far, the post have all had to do with the former and no one has really touched on the latter, except a few disparaging, throw-away comments attacking the arts. I’d argue that this actually supports my point; a lack of education in the humanities leads to a lack of appreciation for the humanities.

Furthermore, no one has defended how more technical classes would improve the quality of engineers. Aside from anecdotes, there is no real evidence to suggest that the quality of engineers is degrading. Technological development continues at an exponential rate. Planes aren’t falling from the sky, buildings aren’t crumbling to the ground. The “kids these days” argument was said about your generation and the generation before that. I feel the voice that says “this generation’s fresh grads don’t know enough coming out of university” comes from businesses. It allows them to pass the buck for training back to universities, it allows them to undervalue new grads and it allows them to get more H1B visas (and my issue is not with immigrant workers “taking” local jobs, my issue is with the fact that H1B workers become indentured servants). I see nothing, aside from improvable anecdotes, to support the position that the quality of new engineers is fading. Furthermore, I see nothing to support the claim that replacing the humanities with more specialized technical education will solve the problem (which I don’t believe exists).

I do agree that more internships and real-world placements can improve the quality of young engineers but that is normally always done as an extension of the degree or in-between the school year. Co-op terms or internship programs never take away class time, they are in addition to it. Therefore, this argument cannot be used to call for less humanities courses as the two do not overlap.

I'd also add that it's rather odd that many of the same people that are arguing for an increased focus on the specialized technical elements of an engineering degree, at the expense of a few humanities classes, also argue against the usefulness of doing a masters or PhD. So is more specialized technical education a positive or non-beneficial thing?

Your comment about the period where a “well-rounded” education arose affecting the reasoning behind it is an interesting one. However, the increasing depth and number of sub-disciplines is, to me, more of an argument against a more specifically focused technical education than for it. The amount of things someone can do with a “mechanical engineering degree” is so vast that it is impossible to teach, at depth, all those areas. Furthermore, the students themselves don’t know which sub-discipline they will end up in. If we want to sacrifice the universal benefit of education in ethics, critical thinking and cultural understanding that the humanities provide, what specific technical area should take its place? More thermofluids, stress analysis, hydraulics, pneumatics, machine design, FMEA, vibrations, acoustics, coding, calculus? It’s a guessing game where over half of the technical classes you take will not be applicable to your job.

(IRstuff, although slightly off topic, I did want to say how much I agree with you that “sports culture” skews priorities and places emphasis and praise on the wrong areas. I say this although sports have been a major part of my life; I played and now coach soccer at a fairly high level. At times I feel I’m complicit with promoting this sports-mad culture however, as a coach, I have always placed emphasis on using sport to develop positive personality traits (teamwork, dedication, dealing with strife and criticism, etc).

But it’s insane how lost this message can get, particularly among the adults. Some of the most talented kids I’ve worked with have been the most problematic. The problem is that other coaches and technical directors think that producing talented players will reflect positively on them, so they constantly gloat over their star players and shower them with praise and love, as a farmer would over his prize-winning pumpkin. They become the golden child of the club and can do no wrong. When you have adults kissing your feet from a young age, of course you will develop a superiority complex - you begin to accept that you can do no wrong. So when I get these kids that don’t want to work, don’t want to be a teammate and don’t want to listen, they get a rude awakening when I’m on their back. They complain and threaten to move their kid to another club and some technical directors bend at the knee. It’s a shame to see these kids be encouraged to be selfish, conceited, jerks. So I completely agree with you and am happy to see there are others that can see the issues as well.)

RE: Standardised testing.

This long thread is way OT now, but rconnor has exposed some of the oddities that exist in our higher education systems. Putting obsessive focus on sports to one side...

UK Employers in the financial/management/consulting/finance/law industries flock to the recruitment fairs of science/engineering universities. Graduates in engineering are in big demand outside of the field of engineering. I suppose the mech eng degree is the fundamental measure of a candidate's relevant (latent) (suit)ability for them. Numerate, logical thinking, problem solving, hard working, not too nerdy, not too much of a party animal. Professions with their own entry barriers, such as law and accountancy, required mech eng grads to sit a year or two of trivial studies in some minor college before getting their stripes. Then again, so did those who'd done straight law or economics, and employers chose the mech eng grads over them. My own student house had three others on my mech eng course. They became lawyer, accountant, management consultant.

So I can only agree that three intensive years of maths/fluids/thermo/stress/materials/dynamics is not going to be useful for most of those who sat it - even those who became engineers. But in our crazy British employment world, it's the yardstick that many employers use. Successful mech eng grads are a good bet. I'm probably VERY unusual in that I regularly use most of the things I studied back then (not materials).

The other aspect is that most UK posters on this site will have had the brilliant/lucky experience of a totally free 1st degree at a UK university of their choice, course of their choice (based on merit, nothing else). The older of use will also have had living expenses thrown in too (beer grants). We had a single shot out of whatever background produced us, with no need to include expense/debt/future plans/etc in any decision. Those who chose arts were taking a three year expenses-paid holiday. Those who chose engineering were getting an extension of school, albeit in a far-flung location that had cheap beer. Now that UK students have to pay for their courses, there may be a shift in this mentality, especially if technical courses start to cost more than arts courses. The removal of the maintenance grants has already made it less likely for students to study in faraway places.

- Steve

RE: Standardised testing.

Addendum.

If you were one of those who sat through the UK Maths/Science A-Levels and a UK mech eng degree, you'll almost certainly have needed no further (external) technical education to function in most engineering functions. That small-ish percentage of mech eng grads that became mech eng practitioners got lucky.

- Steve

RE: Standardised testing.

So, is there just a massive excess of ME grads? Seems to me that one of the issues with a free education is that it removes the return on investment calculation that one might do when choosing a major. If I had to pay $40k/yr for and ME education, but only have, say, a 10% chance of getting an ME job, that might skew my decisions a bit.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Standardised testing.

No, not at all (excess of ME grads). More like an excess of art history, PPE, classics, etc grads. The 3-year holidays that I mentioned. ME was too much like hard work.

- Steve

RE: Standardised testing.

Sompting, if you thought ME grads were in demand you should have seen the scramble for the aero folks at least at Southampton, Anderson Consulting etc. were willing to take much lower grades from Aero courses (and a couple others) than other courses. Off the top of my head I want to say they required 1st from most courses, 2:1 from most engineering and as low as 2:2 from a couple of others including Aero.

(I'm not claiming my doing aero makes me smarter than you or others btw, I definitely was at the low end of the bell curve for my course as a whole.)

RConner, if nothing else I'd think the cost of college education was one reason to second guess how many non core classes should be required.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: Standardised testing.

So KENAT, As you see I've argued our case into a corner. The city of London is packed with suits who have a dim distant memory of Newtonian mechanics, Navier-Stoke equations and matrix inversion techniques. Took me years before I could even afford a black cab, let alone commute in one.

- Steve

RE: Standardised testing.

Either that, or the other industry sector/profession majors are woefully unprepared for the real jobs. Almost everything involves math (maths) these days; I can see why someone might hire an ME, or EE, with an overkill in math, who might be more easily taught finance than a finance major with "just enough" math, and that engineering major would be more appealing as a new hire.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Standardised testing.

@KENAT:

You need to realise that jokey jibes and sarcasm don't work around here. If it's pointy and can dig holes, it needs a big "spade" sign around its neck and an arrow pointing to it.

- Steve

RE: Standardised testing.

A numbers focused industry recruiting from another numbers focused industry for additional specialized, numbers focused education. Please expand on how this supports the position that further reduction in humanities classes in engineering education will save the quality of young engineers.

RE: Standardised testing.

Law is not a "numbers focused industry". Engineering isn't either, unless you are in the business of counting widgets. I suppose accountancy is "numbers focused".

- Steve

RE: Standardised testing.

Right because numbers are only used in counting and never come up in engineering.

As for law, let's look at the numbers (which I was taught to do in engineering, which is apparently quite peculiar):
For example, Michigan's law program distribution of undergrad degrees (which I'd argue is likely fairly typical) is as follows:


This is not surprising considering more humanities/social science career paths lead into law than engineering does.

So, unsurprisingly, the quantity of humanities/social science majors surpasses engineers, but what about quality? Which major scores the highest on the LSAT? Well, according to a 2013 poll of data from LSAC:


Mechanical engineering is the highest engineering major, at 13th, right in between History (aka "past basket-weaving") and Anthropology (aka "how humans weave baskets"). At the top, classics (aka "meta basic-weaving"). Even art history (aka "appreciation and interpretation of woven baskets throughout time"), at 4th, philosophy (aka "thinking about basket-weaving"), at 6th, and music (aka "playing baskets like a drum"), at 11th, sit above mechanical engineering. If Law is being used as a "general" degree to compare how well different majors "teach you how to think", then engineering does a worse job than some of the most basket-weaving-y "basket-weaving" majors. Again, I don't mean to disparage engineering degrees (as 13th is nothing to sneeze at) but I want to highlight the importance and benefit of the humanities/social-sciences.

To bring this back to the debate at hand, none of this supports the arguments that further reductions in humanities will improve engineering education or that a technically focused education (sans humanities) leads to just as (if not more) well-rounded graduates. The former argument has never been addressed (just assumed to be true) and the latter appears to be weakened, if not contradicted, by the fact that those with humanities majors do better on the LSAT, which attempts to be a general critical-thinking exam, than those with engineering majors.

This leaves us with:
(1) No evidence that the quality of engineering grads is in decline (besides anecdotes)
(2) No evidence that, even if the above was true, it was due to the "dilution" of engineering education by the humanities
(3) No evidence that, even if the above was true, the solution would be more technical classes in place of humanities classes
(4) Some evidence to suggest that those with a background in the humanities perform better in more "general" critical-thinking areas, such as LSAT scores, than those in engineering
(5) By combination and extension of (1) to (4), replacing humanities classes with technical classes may lead to a decrease in the general critical-thinking capacity of graduates, especially when dealing with the subjective elements of life in a multi-cultural democracy, and no guarantee of an increase in technical competency, which there is little to no evidence to suggest is in decline. (Which is my argument in a nutshell)

RE: Standardised testing.

I was describing the UK market as it was when I passed through it. Engineering grads from good UK universities going into City law firms (and similar non-engineering professions). Given how different the stated aims of US and UK 1st (bachelor) degree programs are, it makes no sense to assume US data is relevant in discussing how the UK system functions in practice. I did state quite clearly that I think our world is crazy. I am not advocating one position/system over the other. But it is amusing when people get defensive.

I do have an issue with the expression: "teach you how to think". Nobody can be taught to think. They can be encouraged or discouraged, not taught.

- Steve

RE: Standardised testing.

LSAT scores would seem to have little to do with what would have made a good engineer in school. One might argue that more "classics," or even more math, would get engineers better LSAT scores.

Interestingly, the Wikipedia article on LSAT has a similar table, wherein pre-law and criminal justice majors scored the lowest average scores, compared to the other majors.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Standardised testing.

Somptinguy-: "...I do have an issue with the expression: "teach you how to think". Nobody can be taught to think. They can be encouraged or discouraged, not taught..."

Really? Do you have so little faith in the ability of teachers and role models to encourage young people to practise critical analysis, logic, or reasoning (be it technical or otherwise)? Is that really what you mean?

STF

RE: Standardised testing.

Err SparWeb no. I said pecisely that: "They can be encouraged". The ability is inherent, a good teacher will bring it out.

I suppose you are right in that people (anyone) can be taught analysis/reasoning techniques and given handy tools ... sounds like the kind of things a tradesman would recieve in a trade school. Given enough training and practice, they might even appear to be thinking for themselves.

- Steve

RE: Standardised testing.

SomptingGuy, as I have continually said, my argument is not for or against UK vs US systems of education (especially as I'm a product of neither); my argument is about the merits of including the humanities in an engineering curriculum, or any other primary and secondary curriculum for that matter. More specifically, my argument can be summarized in point (5) at the end of my last post.

Your point on encouraging/discouraging thinking is well put but is nevertheless purely semantic (it addresses my diction and says nothing about the underlying argument). Replace "teach you how to think" with "teach general critical-thinking skills" or similar and my argument remains unchanged.

IRstuff, “LSAT scores would seem to have little to do with what would have made a good engineer in school”

The LSAT test critical thinking and logical analysis, especially in dealing in the subjective. Are you suggesting that engineering school doesn’t prepare students for that as well as those “basket-weaving” classes everyone loves to bash? I would agree, it’s kind of my point.

The humanities teach students how to think critically, how to be logical and analytical in a creative and open-minded manner. This allows them to deal well with the subtleties of the subjective. In our modern, multi-cultural democracy, these skills become increasingly important. As I have argued, they are important aspect of both high school and university education and should receive more attention, not less.

RE: Standardised testing.

rconner, I assume you are aware that many standardized tests such as LSAT are gradually becoming discredited in many circles as effectively only testing how much those taking the test think like the people that wrote the test, not necessarily any fundamental measure of a persons intelligence or ability.

So if the test is written by a bunch of ivory tower academic basket weaverswinky smile then those that are culturally like them will do well. Those that think more like trade school oompa lumpa's may not score as highly.

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

RE: Standardised testing.

"Are you suggesting that engineering school doesn’t prepare students for that as well as those “basket-weaving” classes everyone loves to bash? I would agree, it’s kind of my point."

Not what I was getting at; but similar to Kenat's point. Engineering education is almost all purely fact-based, and while "logic" is used in both engineering and philosophy, the contexts are quite different, and the thought processes are different. One of the biggest challenges that a new engineer faces is the lack of facts, which takes years to get over.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Standardised testing.

Re: LSAT

Amusingly we seem to have strayed back on-topic - teaching to the test.

- Steve

RE: Standardised testing.

I would further argue that the US, as a whole isn't actually "teaching to the test" either; test scores in the US have not budged in a decade of comparisons against the world. As a country that is most likely to be capable of teaching to the test, we should be excelling at it, if that's what we're really doing. Countries with far fewer resources are doing better. Our academic curricula at the K-12 level belies any notion that we are demanding better performance. In many countries, algebra and geometry are taught at least two years earlier than in the US. All students in high school should be REQUIRED to complete 1 year of physics and 1 year of chemistry; right now, that's only required of students wanting to go to college. Asians consider tutoring services as a requirement, rather than a band-aid for poorly performing students; getting within spitting distance of 2400 (or 1600, whichever) on the SAT is demanded, so off to tutoring go the kids.

Again, it's not a supply-side problem, it's a demand problem; other countries are invested at every level to excel in academics, while in the US, being smart gets you labeled as a "nerd" or "4-eye," even by the parents. I, as a parent, demand nothing less than the absolute best that my children can accomplish; "B"s are barely tolerated, and "C"s are not acceptable. Our culture continues to see engineers and scientists as quaint and peculiar lab rats, while athletes are adored and showered with money; succeeding in sports is Plan A, while doing well in school is Plan B.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Standardised testing.

Or implies those taking pre-law genuinely aren't as intelligentwinky smile

Steve there at least 2 different types of testing that have now been covered by this topic.

SAT, LSAT, IQ, 11 plus are all intended to be more generic tests of persons intelligence & ability or perhaps for LSAT aptitude for a general field of study.

The standardized testing in the UK system is about testing your knowledge & ability withing some specific field of study/topic such as math(s), or physics...

Posting guidelines FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm? (probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources