NYCPHP Meetup

[Kristina Anderson]

I'm sure most of you already know this but essentially, in times past 
in the United States (and I have to assume hundreds of years ago in 
Europe, as well, although that apparently has changed), the 
undergraduate university degree was seen as a "gentleman's education", 
teaching a liberal arts curriculum that essentially prepared you for no 
useful trade and was sharply contrasted by any "utilitarian" 
or "vocational" education, which taught a trade or skill specifically 
for the purpose of earning money by working (which young gentlemen 
attending university back then usually did not do, but moreso sat 
around on their rear ends reading arcane texts in the original Latin, 
drinking heavily and perhaps going into politics...some things have not 
changed!).

Certain occupations such as the law, the clergy and banking were 
thought to be suitable for gentlemen and any "career related education" 
was to take place on the graduate level.

And vestiges of this system clearly survive to this day even though we 
now have a much higher percentage of students continuing to the college 
level, and many of them with expectations that "going to college" will 
teach them "what they need to know to get a good job".  That isn't the 
function of the university, the function of the university is to 
provide a broad based liberal arts education.  That's why even a B.Sc. 
student in an engineering discipline is expected to take 80 or 85 
credits of miscellaneous "useless" liberal arts or general courses at 
US universities.

Therefore you can see that the reasoning behind this curriculum is NOT 
that US university students are "not ready for higher education" after 
high school or that "university is a continuation of HS" in the US [to 
paraphrase from below]...it's that we here in the US have always had a 
particular notion that liberal arts WAS a university education, and 
that "vocational" or "skills" training was not something that any 
respectable person had to worry about until AFTER 4 years at university.

Vocational training is all well and good and yes, does make 
attractive "workers", but will not replace a solid well rounded 
university education.  


> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, David Krings wrote:
> 
> > See, I consider a university not to be a continuation of high 
school. A 
> > university is supposed to train interested candidates in a field of 
choice 
> > with the goal to make them subject matter experts in that field.
> 
> Yes, exactly!
> 
> > This is how 
> > many other university systems in the world understand "higher 
education". One 
> > reason why foreign specialists are so attractive to US businesses...
> 
> Yep.
> 
> > and the 
> > fact that under H1B via the employees are tied to the company and 
can be made 
> > to do the same job for less money.
> > I think the liberal arts model is purely used for the reason that 
most high 
> > school graduates are not ready for university studies.
> 
> Which to me mens they probably should not be in university until 
they've 
> decided what they want to do.
> 
> > Maybe with better trained university graduates the 
> > need for certifications would be a moot point.
> 
> Totally agree. Maybe the fact that you and I were NOT educated in the 
US 
> gives us a different view on higher education.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Aj.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> New York PHP Community Talk Mailing List
> http://lists.nyphp.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
> 
> NYPHPCon 2006 Presentations Online
> http://www.nyphpcon.com
> 
> Show Your Participation in New York PHP
> http://www.nyphp.org/show_participation.php
> 
>