Mike, I read this item and felt myself nodding my head along with you.  I know two people with doctorates in history who could not find jobs and were really angry with the system.  My response was realy? you thought you were doign that for a job?  For a job...you do something there is a market for, and you may give up your love, etc to do so.

I have worked at jobs that were ok, and some that were great, but, I have always worked.  I did this one knowing that it may not have been where I fed my soul the most, but, i made choices in feeding my family and living at a consumption level that suited us.

I came from amiddle class family where education was not a commodity that we could afford nor was it something you did without for... There was no funding offered to me to just go to school for school's sake, nor was it even within our family's concept of what you might do.

*editted for annoying spelling error

I never was given any guarantees of a job when I signed up for university.  I don't see anything wrong with education for the sake of education.

I do think there should be some education that trains for a job.  If not, where are we going to get the next generation of workers from?  I want my mechanic and doctor and accountant to have some training.  That shouldn't be the only purpose of education though.

I was discussing this with a friend recently. I have a completely "useless" undergrad arts degree. Paid far too much for it & it hasn't improved my job prospects whatsoever.
But I appreciate it more with each passing year. My useless degree opened a world I would otherwise have missed. I can express myself with fair precision and depth. I have interests beyond anything I would have otherwise. Discussions are more satisfying. Although it's a cliche - I have learned to think critically, which has made me a more knowledgable citizen. Research skills have been immeasurably valuable, and I can read widely and with discernment. I can tell a good author from a hack.
My education, such as it is, has brought me much pleasure. Even though it hasn't been of much practical value, it's Priceless.

I sometimes think that we need to start more clearly differentiating between  "Education" and "Training".

Education gives you basic intellectual skills. Reading, writing, arithmetic, logical thinking, that sort of thing. It's also where most high school and lower education should fall, IMHO. If you can't do basic math, etc., then you're not ready for anything else.

Training gives you the skills to do a job/career. Most community college programs fit here. University programs like teaching, law, library science, and business fit here, too. Also apprenticeships.

I guess it's kind of like the difference between pure and applied science. Pure science (= Education) builds a basic understanding of how the world/universe functions. Applied science (= Training) figures out how to use that understanding to create cool toys like the computer I'm typing this on.

For my part, I did a BA in Classics for my education and an MLIS (Master of Library and Information Science) for my training, to which I later added some self-guided training to get Microsoft certification. I use neither of my degrees much at work anymore but value what I learned by doing them. Since I'm a largely self-taught IT geek at this point, even the MLIS now falls under education more so than training.

Mendalla

Mendalla,

Mendalla, good point.  I guess what I was trying to say is that I want people who have a job that required training to also have some education to go along with it.  Knowing all the skills to do a surgery is useful, but it's also important to know when that surgery is the best option, what to do when something happens that someone wasn't trained for, or how to counsel someone to decide whether to have the surgery or not.  Training alone is rarely useful.

Precisely. We need both.

Mendalla

I was recently talking with an acquaintance.  Her son, a brilliant student, wil be graduating from high school in the spring and has already begun applying for scholarships, even though his parents (both professionals) can afford to help him.  He wants to be a doctor of medicine, but he also wants to get his undergraduate degree in Arts.  He considers this basic for his education. 

He has applied to four of the top universities in Canada.  He'll see what he can work out.  Hopefully enough pre-med along with his Arts so that he doesn't lose too much time. 

Education and career training.

My sister, a nurse, bemoans the fact that she doesn't have 'an education'.  Yet she shows scorn for young people, like my kids, who 'waste their parents' money on Arts'.  He son is an engineer.

A university education for basic training in thinking, appreciation, decision-making, expression is larely a waste of time because most (almost all) professors have not the faintest idea how to teach these things. That holds true all the way to a PhD.

You will, of course, learn something about these things on the way - but largely by accident.

Professors are trained to do research. that's it. They have no understanding of university beyond doing research. that's why most of a BA is just rote learning (soon to be forgotten) about the latest, up to date research.

Take a look at any the course descriptions ro departmental brochures in university sites on the web. Almost are about what research various teachers specialize in - and their course descriptions almost never include methods of thought. Almost all are about the professor's research interests and about passing on Information rather than skills.

I was raised in an evironment that did not value education. Indeed, it was religiously regarded as something to be feared as reaching beyond our appointed position in life. What I learned in university was essentially how to think (in the current social mode) and say the right things at each level as I rose through the system.

Some training programmes are effective in passing on job-related skills. Some involve types of thinking (chemistry, medecine, theology). The danger is that some become far to closely attached to the immediate needs and the commercial world - and to its political propaganda. Economics and business admin are very prone to  this.

The universities need to do a fundamental re-thinking of what they're about. But they won't. They've had their noses in thier own belly buttons so long that the sight of any other world would scare them.

Graeme: I had some superb teachers at university, at Auckland where I did a double psychology/anthropology BA Hons and in Glasgow where I did my PhD years later.

Profs opened their homes as well as their offices… and their hearts as wekk as their heads. A number of them very greatly enriched my life.

None of it greatly impacted my income and I feel I got by far the best possible reward.

I have some post secondary education. A college diploma plus just under two years of general arts courses, plus some other college level professional development courses. No degree. To get my degree would require, depending on what degree I pursued, where I went to university and what transferrable credits they accept, between a year to two years to get a BA or Bachelor of Social Work.  I regret not having more formal education. I didn't know what I wanted when I was younger, or where I was going with it--so I left school for a number of years while I worked at this and that, then I went back and got a diploma in social services because it combined basic education, like a "mini" school of social work program, and practical job skills training. The problem is that it is too limiting. I am really not qualified to do much more than entry level work in a field that is hiring fewer people to do more work--the job market is more competitive now than it was when I started-- and I'm qualified as more of a "professional assistant' , I guess you could say,  than a professional--and jobs in the field are at the mercy of so much top down politics and a level of bureaucracy that goes against the professional ethics I was taught (and believe in) to work in a helping profession--especially working directly with marginalized people. 

Of course, because I am not officially a member of a professional body, such as the College of Social workers, lack of ethics, like puting company "profit" or suplus before an adequate level of client service and follow-up-- wouldn't put me at any risk of getting in trouble with a professional body--so I think para-professionals are used by employers nowdays, partially because of the lack of an official requirement for them to defend certain principles as members of a professional body, which can be exploited by employers who are more corporate and/ or money minded than client centred--plus they  meet the bare minimum requirements which allow employers get away with paying less . The field I worked in, like many, has become too de-humanized, and without more education, I am a cog in the wheel with no voice--and, imo, that makes me part of the problem, but never part the solution. I should never have settled for that. I regret it. I don't really give a damn about money anymore, or status --as long as we can pay for the basics that's fine-- and we have no kids--so I will get by doing what I can within my ethical boundaries until and unless I go back to school. I guess it's not too late, but I can't afford to do it right now--as we mainly work to survive so the time and money it would take doesn't seem like an option right now. I really love learning  though, and I would love to have the structure of classes and papers to push myself.  I read and learn lots all the time, but it's all over the place, unstructured.

I do think though, that the focus on "job training" as opposed to education is causing an all around brain drain in our society. It's creating a society of expendable worker bees, basically. Trained to take orders. Educated people are a threat in that sort of climate.  I personally think, like in many European countries, post-secondary education should be free. Education should not be dictated by the job market as it is now--but should be taught to all who want it, to enrich people's lives for it's own sake. I think our society would be better off for it--but in terms of short term cost benefit, I guess our current system doesn't see it that way.

Hi Mike,

This is an interesting discussion.  Like many here, I think it is important to discern between education and training. 

In my case, I have always believed in learning, and there was no doubt that I would attend University.  There was doubt as to how I would pay for it, especially after my Father died when I was eleven years old.  I worked p/t all through high school and saved for University.  I also maintained a solid GPA and I was lucky enough to get an OSAP grant - yes, grants did exist "back then"; but I still held a p/t job during my undergrad years because I went to an out of town University, and the grant didn't cover tuition, let alone living expenses.

I graduated during a recession, with a BA Hons in World Regions (now usually termed Comparitive Religious Studies, or in some cases, Comparitive Religions...)and Humanities.  Many of my friends took the science route, and some became teachers.  Of my friends who also went the liberal arts route, it was tough for us to get work upon graduation.  One joke we shared, and it is common, was the phrase, "Would you like fires with that?"

That said, I know that having a degree made me employable, and even though in those first few years that I was under-paid and/or underemployed, there was value added to my CV because of my post-secondary studies. 

When I went on to grad studies (p/t), my value increased as did employment opportunities.  Here is the rub: a few decades ago, a BA  provided many better-paying employment opportunities.  Now it is an MA, MDiv,MSc, etc that will provide an  advantage.  As will a PhD.  I know a woman with a doctorate in classic literature who is a Director in a medical research institute... because she can write and manages the infrastructure awards program, which is worth mega millions.  There are ways to find employment with advanced degrees in private and public sectors; it is possible.  The caveat is the value of having "just" a BA. 

For me, education has always been of great importance, in and of itself.  I have worked long enough to know that once hired, training happens as well.  I do think that during high school, students should be encouraged to reflect upon career paths, options, etc... and be encouraged also to consider vocational programs at the college level - where more often education and training go hand in hand. 

Many University programs are NOT for practical training purposes; traditionally, it was rigourous academic work, a pursuit of knowledge and the ability to produce unique, thoughtful, insightful notions and ideas, to be a critical thinker, and to conduct research that was reflected in the value of a BA (and of course grad work...).  However, this is changing, as Universities battle the critique that many BA programs ar BS.

With possibly two exceptions, the professors who taught my courses were bright, engaging, and opened their offices and homes to us (as written above).  I even house sat one prof's home while he was out of country on sabbatical.  I have attended Seders, Christmas eve open houses and a rather infamous New Year's bash - but that story is for another time ;)

uh oh.  I should have taken typing instead of music in high school: 

In previous post, it should read, "Would you like fries (NOT FIRES) with that?"

Although, "Would you like fires with that?" is interesting...perhaps even Freudian typing... or some crazy Jungian thing... :) 

Me too. Well, I did take a typing course. But  I still have clumsy fingers.

Kimmio:  I refer to mine as muppet hands :)

Hi MikePaterson,

I think that it may need to be a component of some educational endeavours.  We expect surgeons to know how to cut as well as when, why and where.  I cannot imagine any profession that welcomes a completely ignorant workforce.

I don't think so.  I think the responsibility attached to the job might be better tied to income.

Shudder.  Are you saying that professional athletes might not actually contribute more value to society than educators, physicians or street sweepers?  That is outrageous.

The concept of education is still, I believe, fairly solid.  Expectations of what it is for might not be realistic particularly when those expectations appear to be self-centred.  That is probably just my civic-mindedness showing.  The economy always measures money.  It is the monetary value we assign to this or that which determines whether or not the economy can be sustained.

How much is 100 acres of farmland worth?  How much is 100 acres of Commercial zone worth?  How much is 100 acres of Residential zone worth?  All have value that is unique to their circumstance.  We have no real systems that adjust and compensate for the differences.

Taxation, where it is uniform puts the farmer at a disadvantage as he or she is one taxpayer compared to the commercial corporation or the residents in a neighbourhood.  Where revenue is the measuring stick industry takes the value lead.  When your workers are hungry at home on on the assembly line then the farmer becomes of greater value.

If all three were held in some kind of balance things might be more stable.

Since the only balance, at present,  is what we are willing to pay.  Farmers are selling farmland so that there will be more industry or residential and then food prices increase.  Since there is very little movement back to the land (farms are bought for commercial/industrial/residential purposes but few neighbourhoods, factories and shopping malls are being purchased by farmers and turned into arable land.

In generalities mostly.

One generality sees education as means to success as end.  

Grace and peace to you.

John

Seeler,

 FYI, for your young friend, who probably knows this already, but just in case... there is an excellent program at McMaster University: Arts and Science.  It is an exclusive program and at times quite gruelling - but it is worth it.  I know one person who graduated from this program, went on to law school, decided it was not the path she wanted, and eventually pursued a degree in medicine, but as a ND (naturopathic doctor).

Enrolment is very limited to this program, but when one graduates, many paths are wide open, including med school.  Another bonus is the small cohort - you really get to know your profs and fellow students.

If your young friend does not know about the McMaster undergrad program, here is a link.http://future.mcmaster.ca/programs/artsci/

Thanks Redhead!

You're welcome :)

Seeler,

BTW,  I know of two good med schools that actually accept students who have BAs, although sometimes additional University credits in the field of basic science, are required, esp. organic chemistry. 

UofWO and McMaster (Mac), have been accepting "arts" students into their med schools for decades.

Once again, I should have posted that earlier, and your young friend may or may not know this, but it certainly does not hurt to pass along the info :)

Being open and friendly and even insprising is not all there is to being a teacher - not even close.

Teaching kindergarten, for example, requires the above, plus intense training. As a result, kindergarten teachers are the best teachers, as a group, I have ever seen.

levels of training in teaching remain quite decent through elementary school. They weaken slightly in high school as the disciplinary aspect of education becomes more important. Then teaching crashes in university.

University teachers typically have no training whatever in teaching. None. I really don't care what sweethearts they may be, and how they invite you into their homes, or how well they lecture. Would you choose a medical doctor for a heart operation based on cordiality? speakiing ability?

They have NO training. Most have no concept of what education means. I found in teaching history that teaching writing was of central importance. But teaching writing does not arise naturally, no matter how good a writer the teacher might be. One has to understand and use the learning process - and that takes training.. I also found it important to teach reading. And that, too, is a skill that requires training. (No, I do not mean university students don't know how to read. I mean they often don't read at a university level - for the same reason they don't know history or accounting at a university level. Of course not. That's why they're at the university.)

A student is not a good judge of teaching. Why should a student be? because they see a lot of it? Millions watch TV for hours every day. Does that make them good judges of TV? And, if so, why do they watch such garbage?

I can say this with a clear conscience because I routinely had escellent course evaluations from my students. I hope I earned them. But i would certainly not take students' evaluations as any proof of a teacher's ability. They liked me. that's nice. But that doesn't mean I was a great teacher, or even a good one.

In forty years of university teaching, I never once heard a word of discussion on how to teach or on the nature of learning. Not once. Everything was research and personal prestige as a scholar.

Promotion and bonusses were based almost entirely on publication. One of the worst teachers i ever saw, a person so bad he should never have been allowed in a classroom, got maximum bonusses every year because he published articles - obscure and unread - but published.

I sat on many committees that recommended promotions and bonusses. I was department chairman  for six years. in that time, I saw some pretty awful teaching evaluations - and I knew some of them were quite valid. But in my whole university experience, I know of only one person ever fired for hopeless incometence in teaching. It took two years to do it. And it took a year in which 40 people registered for his course, and 39 withdrew after the first lecture.

(For Canada as a whole, I know of only one other firing. But it was the result of a conviction for pedophilia.) Firing for incompetent teaching is pretty much unheard of.

Yes, people can learn to to reseach, to think, to organize in university. But it usually happens as a mild byproduct.

Look at the course descriptions. They are almost invariably written as descriptions of the information content of the course. Rarely is there any mention of skills to be learned. There's a reason for that. There is no prestige to be gained through teaching. There is no concept of teaching beyond speaking in a clear voice.  And there are few, very, very few academics who have any concept of what learning and teaching mean.

How could they?  Most have no training whatever in it. Few,  in their whole careers, are likely to read as much as one article on the subject.

I know many people have fond memories of old, university teachers. That does not mean they were good teachers. After all, most of those who hold those memories have no training in teaching, either.

It depends on the school.  Some have no pre-reqs about specific courses.  As long as one has enough university courses, with good enough grades, and does well on the MCAT, there are no other course requirements for admission to certain schools.

Graeme, don't be such an iceberg. Maybe you taught without cordiality but being prepared to discuss the subject in pretty much any context — by involving a keen student in a reserach project even in a fairly menial role, sitting around a fire on archaeology digs, waiting for a hangi to cook and be opened, waiting for a bus, over coffee at a downtown cafe,  in the pub on Friday night — certainly helps to deepen and broaden a student's understanding and appreciation of the discipline.

Nobody chooses a teacher simply on the basis of his/her cordiality, but a distant authoritarian conveys more about arrogance, conceit and indifference than the knowledge he/she may have. Don't get me wrong, I have known great teachers who lacked great verbal skills, or whose writing was difficult to engage with but who cared about their students enough to give it the extra time. I have also known scholars who have been so self-preoccupied they conveyed nothing.

At university level, the most important thing a teacher can pass on is a resilient curiosity and discerning critical thinking skills. That should militate against careless evaluations of teachers.

I have had the pleasure to work with serious researchers at the Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute (HSCRI)

I know that some don't teach at all, except at the grad level, some who really engage and enjoy teaching at the undergrad level (at a personal cost to lab time), and some who are driven by their research and who dislike the idea of teaching.  I suspect that partially, this has to personality, and the ability to engage on many levels with students who may, at a certian point in their academic careers, excel the teacher.  The proof of a good teacher, who cares about a student's progress, is to aid in that process, share in the success of new discoveries, and new directions in areas of research and teaching. 

There are two ways to get good reviews as a prof: easy course (because the prof didn't give a crap for the subject at hand, the students, the academic process, merit, publishing or perishing and had to retain tenure by teaching and then became embittered) or because the profs were really invested in the pursuit of knowledge, investigation, research methodology, and the the novel outcomes, that can benefit socities at large.

The ideals of research and the practise of research, training of which starts with an undergrad, does exist, and undergrads/grad students continue to produce novel, innovative works. With hope, most research is beneficial, although to be balanced some results of research can be used in negative ways.

HI chemgal,

I referred to Western and Mac as two schools who do admit "arts" students, but also in addition to great GPA and MCAT scores, require org chem - which is generally known as a weeding out course for med/sci.

I am seriously and very interested to learn more about other med school programs that are accepting med students with arts backgrounds. I know really well what UofT requires, and McGill.  Tier two Universities with med schools are different with regard to criteria.  But not to seem biased with regard to entrance requirements for med students; bringing a different perspective to healing, while being able to competently get through the rigourous program of med school is historically proven: medicine is as much an art as a science.

The separation of art and science is still very new, historically speaking.  And there is a renewed respect for inter-disciplinary approaches to bench science, and philosophy of care and caring.

Publish or perish is a fact of academic life.  It is about RESEARCH and remaining productive.  Those who survive in academia end up in admin roles to augment salary. Mostly because they are not being published in peer-reviewed journals.  And if they are working on books, they are being rejected by publishers. 

Hence taking up admin roles.  Hence becoming bitter.  Hence not giving a crap about what they teach, or for the University, the process of education, and research, which is still most protected within Universites.  Hence hanging on to tenure by teaching undergrad courses, because their research and publications go nowhere.  Hence being the profs with a reputation of easy courses, because the syllabus has not changed for decades and former students will circulate notes and papers, sometimes freely and sometimes at a price. 

I think John was wrong when he said (above):

"The concept of education is still, I believe, fairly solid.  Expectations of what it is for might not be realistic particularly when those expectations appear to be self-centred.  That is probably just my civic-mindedness showing.  The economy always measures money.  It is the monetary value we assign to this or that which determines whether or not the economy can be sustained."

The big difference for me would be that education is liberating; training is constraining.

Education opens the world and our minds to it; training focuses us on what's immediately to hand.

When that line gets blurred, education can become less liberating and training risks becoming less focused.

The intrusion of business into university education is a pernicious virus,

I taught because I loved teaching. It came as a shock to move into a university world in which the only worthwhile ones are those who come from a family and social background that adapts them to the university world.

The most common comment I heard about students was "they aren't ready for university." Nonsense. Most of them are quite ready. What academia is really saying is "I don't want to teach. I can't teach. And I don't want to bother with it."

I remember, as chairman, dealing with faculty that I asked to teach a lousy six hours a week -and who whined that it was too much. One prof flatly refused to teach. "Gosh, Graeme. If I have to teach, I'll have to live in Montreal."

To anyone who thinks teaching is just about being respected or admired or getting invited to supper, I can only suggest hiring a brain surgeon based solely on those qualifications.

As to business influence, it owns the  university. The extent and speed of the takover in the last thirty years has been remarkable. Here in New Brunswick, there is actually a stable of rent a profs (a small one) to do interviews for the local press praising whatever big business wants to do with us.

When the head honcho for big business formed a propaganda committee to plan the economic future of this province, all his flunkies scampered to join in, of course. But even they weren't fast enough to beat the univesities presidents in their bid to pay homage.

And it has been made worse by (what should be) the scandalous behaviour of maclean's in putting out its absurd rankings of universities. The whole thing is fraudulent - but it is so influential that all the university presidents in Canada are scrambling to make their universities be what magazine editors say a university should be.

I should add that the Maclean's survey in a least two years named me as one of the five best teachers at Concordia. It was a crock. nobody interviewed me. Nobody questioned me. There was NO study of any such sort done at the university. i have no idea how my name ended up there: and I rather think the editors of maclean's have no idea, either.

For academics of this country, we have journals of history, political science, interdisciplinary studies, booze...you name it, all of them heavily subsidized because, though very few people read them, they are terribly, terribly important.. To the best of my recollection I cannot think of a single Canadian journal for academics devoted to the subject of university teaching.

And, as I look at today's calendar for my old university, I note the obsession with status through research a la maclean's has rapicdly advanced. There is not a single course that mentions teaching anything but the more or less factual information in it. nothing about research skills, writing, analysis. 

For a students attuned to that world, university is worthwhile. For most, it's a colossal ripoff.

I just finished writing an essay on Benjamin Franklin for school. His formal education did not last long. It ended when he failed math in business school at an early age.

He really educated himself, through reading books. Many of them by european Enlightenment authors such as John Locke.

In his middle age Franklin established an academy to train people vocationally and in the natural sciences.

I think vocational training is an excellent idea.

As for my own university education, I began studying general ministries. This will change next year as I move on to seminary and begin studying for a specific church/parachurch role.

Rich blessings.

My favourite teachers were my second first-year English professor and a nun who taught at AST: both were extremely knowledgeable in their fields, passionate about what they taught, and dedicated to educating their students well. The EDCI prof for elementary mathematics was also exceptional.  Another top teacher was the principal of my elementary/junior high school, and the last one I would mention is my grade 11 and 12 English teacher.  Looking back, I feel a great deal sympathy for him as he tried hard to open up our class of top academic students to thinking about more than what we had to do to get good marks.  It surprises me as a math/science teacher that two of my favourite teachers were English teachers, but I was so tuned in to math and science that the quality of the teaching didn't really matter for those subject areas.

While I was aiming at a science occupation in university, my love of learning included anthropology (2 courses) and Classics courses (3 courses).  I sometimes wonder if the professional faculties (medicine, education, architecture, nursing, law, engineering) should be regarded as in the border zone between university and tech/voc schools, with an increasing emphasis on apprenticeship-like training along with regular courses.

Education for me happens in any kind of setting; schooling happens in an educational institution; training can happen anywhere.  Anyone who complains about not being able to get a job after pursuing studies of interest to them probably suffers from the common affliction of excess sense of entitlement.

The best teacher I ever had was Mr. Doak - in grade nine. He was the one we all remembered. And what we remembered most is that we wanted to be like him.We were a rowdy bunch in a tough school. And even in that tough school, room 22 had a reputation.  Occasionally, we even locked a teacher out of the room so , instead of class, we could smoke and/or hang a small kid outside the window by his feet.

I can't think of anything Mr. Doak did that I could point to as good teaching. What made him so memorable was that he respected us. And, oh, we loved him right back.