Critical Thinking

[ebbomega]

Sean: The problem is believing that a liberal arts degree has any bearing whatsoever on your profession. How far you can take it, yes, but not on what your profession entails. University is not for vocation-training. That's what trade schools are for.

[decypher]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

That's very insightful Kam, except for one thing:

There are very few jobs in this world that require a degree (diploma yes, degree no).

Really the only ones you'll need a degree for - and with good reason:
- engineer
- medical doctor (& psychiatrists, dentists, etc.)
- heavy science work (astrophysics, NASA type work, particle acceleration, etc.)
- teacher / university professor

One can even become a lawyer without a law degree. You just probably won't be very successful at it. I suppose you could add "Ordained Minister" there, because a minister is technically a bible scholar.

Everything else doesn't really need a degree. They'll say "Requires x degree or equivalent experience". And most of the time if a degree will help you out in a job, they don't even care what the degree is in. You can go into marketing with an Arts degree, or you could become a therapist with a physiology degree (like Dr. Laura). All that people normally care about is that you have _a_ degree, meaning you're willing to put the commitment and intellectual investment into getting one. This says a lot more about your character than the fact that you spent four years discussing why Descartes was an idiot.

yes very true i should have clarified further. Like when i said how people judge you depending on the way you convey yourself. Having a degree or a trade or just experience in your profession gives you that position to move forward. I was more responding to the idea in this thread that a degree is useless and that profs mold and conform our precious little minds. Degrees/trades/dress/conduct/speech are seen socially as giving you that level of respect/investment despite what your motives are or how you use it or how it's taught to you. It's just another label or constraint that effects us as we move along our paths.

[decypher]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

Also:



I think this is a bit of a myth. For a few reasons. Namely

1) Most of the old professors I've met WANT you to challenge their ideas. They will shoot you down, of course, but the idea is that if you can hold your own in an argument against them, they will respect you far more than a yes-man who just recites everything that they're fed. Yes, you do get some profs who are so set in their own ways that they refuse to listen to anybody else, but I find that these are few and far between.
2) Most of the time, in university, particularly at the lower levels, the professor doesn't really do ANYTHING except design your assignments and tests and show up for lectures. The people marking your tests and papers are usually TAs, grad students and other people who are trying just as hard as you are to get THEIR challenges heard by the faculties.

yeh i've met those profs too, they aren't being mean they are just being blunt and want you to defend your argument. It definitely makes for a real education. I've also met some profs and especially TA's who don't hold back on some of the younger students by resorting to more power related responses and essentially making people not want to talk up. They frame their words like their opinion is the one and only way to approach a certain topic just because they have more experience and sometimes shooting people down with anger laced speech when the people speaking have very valid arguments. This is when it becomes less about facilitating discussion and more about the Profs/TA's own biased opinion. I think this is the root for why people see the institution as a whole as being elitist and conformative. I guess the ratio at which you experience this depends on where you goto school etc.

for example, this TA recently was discussing the effects of media on society in shaping people and someone else disagreed and had a very valid argument and the TA made some comment on the intelligence and ability to think critically that comes with a university degree as a reason why the other persons comment was incorrect. The response was definitely targeted at the student in a personal way. Such BS.

[SEAN!]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

Sean: The problem is believing that a liberal arts degree has any bearing whatsoever on your profession. How far you can take it, yes, but not on what your profession entails. University is not for vocation-training. That's what trade schools are for.

dude.

lawyer: needs undergrad + 3 years and to artical
Accountant: need undergrads specific courses + undergrad + grad and articling
Investment analyst: needs a highly regarded finance undergrad or even better masters degree/CFA and work experience
doctor: needs a science undergrad plus med school and a residency

do you understand where im going?
Yeah trade schools are fucking great most of my buddies are making 70-80k a year and only working 40 hrs a week off of that.

I want to be a professional, even if my undergrad was based on understanding that flowers and 'nature shit is dope' its only just the basis for something else.

[decypher]

It was some timid girl and she looked very turned down after the TA said that, i felt bad because her opinion seemed very thought out.

I think it had to do with the TA feeling left out from the course because the profs leave her in the dark and take a different perspective then the one she agrees with.

[ebbomega]

Originally Posted by SEAN!

dude.

lawyer: needs undergrad + 3 years and to artical

Depends on where you want to practice. I think in Louisiana you just need to pass the bar test. I think that's what the guy that Catch Me If You Can is based on did.

Accountant: need undergrads specific courses + undergrad + grad and articling

good one. Forgot about that

Investment analyst: needs a highly regarded finance undergrad or even better masters degree/CFA and work experience

srsly? That strikes me as one of those jobs that if you have the business experience they may waive the degree req's. Again though, if you don't have the accreditation your clients will probably be wary of your decisions and ergo you wouldn't have much business. But afaik it's not a necessity for the job.

doctor: needs a science undergrad plus med school and a residency

Yeah, I mentioned medical doctor, but thanks.
(oh, you forgot internship, which happens between med school and your residency)

do you understand where im going?

You're giving examples, but I'm telling you those examples are limited. 90% of the jobs that are out there do not require a degree, and of the ones that do very few of them require a _SPECIFIC_ degree.

HOWEVER, of those 90% of the jobs out there, a degree will greatly increase your standing, and in most cases garner you a better salary.

Yeah trade schools are fucking great most of my buddies are making 70-80k a year and only working 40 hrs a week off of that.

I want to be a professional, even if my undergrad was based on understanding that flowers and 'nature shit is dope' its only just the basis for something else.

Again, VERY FEW jobs really care what you got your degree in, as long as you have it. You could have a major in Navel Gazing with a minor in VCR Programming and still get a solid job with it.

[cocoabeans]

It's a superficial world out there. If you have the means and the motivation to finish up extra studies beyond highchool, it's worth it.

[SEAN!]

Originally Posted by SEAN!

dude.

lawyer: needs undergrad + 3 years and to artical
Accountant: need undergrads specific courses + undergrad + grad and articling
Investment analyst: needs a highly regarded finance undergrad or even better masters degree/CFA and work experience
doctor: needs a science undergrad plus med school and a residency

do you understand where im going?
Yeah trade schools are fucking great most of my buddies are making 70-80k a year and only working 40 hrs a week off of that.

I want to be a professional, even if my undergrad was based on understanding that flowers and 'nature shit is dope' its only just the basis for something else.

my reading comprehension isn't very good after smoking weed, i understand that i was basically saying the same thing you were.

[Ragga_Wh0re]

Originally Posted by ebbomega

BTW: Ragga, I'd honestly recommend throwing your kid into a French-Immersion program if you can find one nearby. Getting those language brain cells working at a young age has been proven to help with higher-level cognitive skills later in life.

I grew up in the public school system and did three years in private school before graduating. The main advantage that private school gave me was that there were much better programs that I could use and exploit - IF I was willing to take those opportunities. If kids don't get motivated to do the work, private school is essentially a waste of money.

Don't send your kids to private school against their volition. They will simply resent you for it and try their hardest to get expelled.

Yeah her language center is highly developed for her age group.She picks up on other languages very easily too, certain words in Spanish and Italian,can count to 10 and sing twinkle twinkle little star and Baby Beluga...and she'll be 2 tomorrow.

Im definately not going to subject her intellect to the hell of public schooling.Im thinking along the lines of Waldorf or other schools like it...which Ive yet to find. Thier curriculum is unique.

[jenai]

the best waldorf is in north vancouver.

montessouri (sp?) also gets good raves from enlightened parents.

my best friend's sister won't put her daughter into the public school serving her catchment area cos the area is more than 1/3 south asian. they live near 88th ave and 140th st. in surrey.

private school is a workable option.

tho in the old days, parents used to hired tutors from amongst their peers to teach the kids about life and learning. it lead to less of the problems kids face these days in public school. in fact, school killings and related murder suicide are almost more commonplace than they were two hundred years ago. and the main difference is schools became academic factories.

[SEAN!]

Originally Posted by jenai

the best waldorf is in north vancouver.

montessouri (sp?) also gets good raves from enlightened parents.

my best friend's sister won't put her daughter into the public school serving her catchment area cos the area is more than 1/3 south asian. they live near 88th ave and 140th st. in surrey.

private school is a workable option.

tho in the old days, parents used to hired tutors from amongst their peers to teach the kids about life and learning. it lead to less of the problems kids face these days in public school. in fact, school killings and related murder suicide are almost more commonplace than they were two hundred years ago. and the main difference is schools became academic factories.

put it to jenai to have a voice of reason on the matter,

[jenai]

Today, it is almost illegal to tutor a child without a teaching certificate, and additionally, even night school instructors have to get that certificate even though their knowledge base is bigger than a teacher's.

If the teachers' union found out you were home-schooling your kids without using provincial education curricula, then you'd get demonized and forced out of BC.

However, home-schooling with additional tutoring by people knowledgeable in their specialization is usually superior to a public school education.

These professionals are recommended to tutor your kids:

money and time managers
mothers (child care, cooking and cleaning)
entrepreneurs who are good with kids
parents - who provide valuable material on relationships

[Goat]

Critical thinking can be taught, not just through post secondary education. Period.

[Prissypants]

I don't know if it is taught so much as honed...

[jenai]

i was gonna to tell a story about Williams Syndrome to show that even some mentally challenged people utilize critical thinking but it's better to start a new thread.