Vitaliy <spam <at> maksimov.org> writes:

> > 2. Private education industry sells image more than anything else. When 
> > left
> > unchecked it produces a mass flow of 'engineers' in sanitation, funeral
> > services, roofing, and certain operating systems that shall remain 
> > unnamed.
> 
> That's not true, the market responds very quicly to any change in demand. 
> Faced with the prospect of having to borrow $40,000 for school, people tend 
> to do more research than usual. And there's nothing preventing the students 
> from dropping out in the middle of their studies when it becomes obvious 
> that their employment prospects upon graduation are grim.

Dropping out for the reason you gave is often not an option. The problem is 
that there is too much regulation where the money is (accreditation, licensing)
and too little where the curriculum is determined. So you have very wildly
differing schools but the ones that 'matter' tend to be ultra expensive, and 
the rest tend to skimp in various ways. There is also the matter of 'overseas'
degrees. Since the curriculum and testing standards vs. there vary even more
than in the home country, as I wrote before, someone hired based on 'high
qualification' for the job cannot be compared with a local until an equivalent
exam is administered.

You are saying that the market reacts very quickly, and this is correct, but
education is not some kind of soap brand that can go out of fashion. Probably
90% of the curriculum taught does not change one iota over 50 years or so. Yet,
the 'market reaction' causes educational institutions to change the weight of
certain subjects in the curriculum by huge amounts. As a result the schools
produce an unbalanced output that is 2-5 years behind the curve of what is
really needed (and perceived as needed) at the time of enrollment. Also there 
is a huge number of 'out of fashion' occupations that are under-supplied by
default with this system. It's like the 5-year plan in socialism. Trying to
predict what millions will do and need 5 years down the road. This has been
proven to be doomed to fail. That's why general education in university is
considered more valuable than on-the-job training.

So eventually, there should be a type of quality control system independent of
any schools or unions that tests people's skills before allowing them to
practice them. Such systems exist for medical professions, structural engineers
and other occupations that may be a license to kill without controls. I think
that some kind of informal independent testing should be used in all cases
(think driving license test).

Also your example of a final year with an enrollment of one is a typical case 
of an image sales school (independently from what it really teaches). All the
circus with the graduation would not have been necessary if the school would
have been flexible and recognized the situation. (aside: I am very leery of
ceremonies and pompous political mass-happenings due to personal experiences in
the (communist) past of the country where I was born). Without being cynical,
the graduation is in no way different from a driver's license issuing, and the
certificate could be mailed if necessary. Of course traditions are important 
but fake traditions are kitschy imho. Personally, I would prefer a 1:1
graduation type in an office or somewhere, where each graduate gets a chance to
exchange 10 words with his ex-professors if need is felt to do that.

Peter P.


-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist