Kirkhill said:
GA:
Harris had little to do with this generalized problem. My kids are going to school in BC and Harris hasn't been here recently. More to the point I have relatives and friends in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta that seem to find similar problems with their systems.
Yeah, from what I gather, education is deemed a problem everywhere but Harris did little to help matters in Ontario. Although, as much as people tend to knock education, we have a generally well-educated populous. The sad thing is that one of the areas in which most people seem to be lacking knowledge is Canada itself - history, geography, government, etc.
By the way Grade 12 used to get you your Ontario Secondary School Graduation Diploma which would get you into a college like Sir Sandford Fleming while Grade 13 would get you the Ontario Secondary School Honours Graduation Diploma which was necessary for University. At my school at least I found that when I got to University (in Ontario) I was repeating the stuff I had been taught in Grade 13. And this was almost 30 years ago - Oh God.
It operated the same way up until they ditched OAC/Gr.13. I found the same thing - stuff I'd done in HS, I ended up repeating a bit in my first year of university. I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing, though - it just ensured I did well.
On point though. It is not just a case that the skills taught were sufficient for the tasks required. I actually don't believe that the necessary skills have changed that much (reference 25 years in the labour force, much of it designing operating systems and instructing people how to use them, many of them people with no english, little education and whose employers have had to instruct them on how to use a western flush toilet and toilet paper.)
In many occupations, I have no doubt that you're absolutely correct. There will always be plenty of occupations (possibly even the majority) in which it's almost entirely a matter of experience vs. knowledge (schooling knowledge, I mean). My dad dropped out of high school and went on to become a senior VP at Global Television - his professional training consisted of working under people who showed him the ropes and gave him the opportunities necessary to develop the skills and knowledge necessary for the field. I seriously doubt he would have done any better (and possibly even worse, if you count the time out of the workforce) had he gone to university.
University was not a place to learn skills. It certainly wasn't a place to learn how to learn. It was a place to gain knowledge.
I've found that the "learning how to learn" thing does apply, at least to me. I've also found that my capacity for critical thinking has been helped quite a bit. There's also a different mindset that I've found with my friends/family/etc. that have gone to university - not better/worse than those who haven't, just different. I don't really know how to put it - it's like prostitution: I can't explain it but I know it when I see it.
Having worked with people of all levels of education, what you learn in university 20 to 25 years ago (and that includes me) is less value than what you learn in the intervening years.
I'll take your word for it, as I have very little experience to go on. I believe you're right, though you can't discount the value of the knowledge you receive in relation to occupations which require specific, specialised knowledge (IE the sciences, IT, etc).
Someone who is able to put to good use their 25 years of experience but has no university education, is of more use to me as an employer than some one who went to school 25 years ago and stopped learning the day he graduated. The only difficulty I have is that they can't produce a piece of paper from an independent 3rd party vouching as to the knowledge and skills that they have.
I think that might be a contributing factor in the over-valuation of degrees - they provide a credible statement of a person's knowledge (or assumed level thereof). I would think that a well-checked reference list would probably achieve the same end, though it's more time consuming.
I wonder sometimes whether another aspect of "degree popularity" is that while you can take a high school graduate and put him in an occupation which generally requires a degree, and he'll do the job relatively well, you likely get the same level of performance from a university/college educated person except they come into the profession with a broad knowledge of the subject matter and the major concepts/techniques/approaches within it. What I mean is that the learning curve and breadth/depth of knowledge would be different at the get-go. Of course, it would vary quite a bit depending on the occupation - a sales position could probably be filled just as well by a highschool grad with natural charisma and ambition just as well as some university grad with a degree in marketing or business. Conversely, a lab technician, lawyer, doctor, psychologist, engineer, or physicist absolutely requires the knowledge gained through post-secondary education.
My own field of study (and the only one on which I can really speculate, and even then only from an under-grad perspective) - political science - is one of those "grey" degrees - it's kind of specialised but it's by no means as much so as the hard sciences. You could spend 3 hours trying to explain a concept in quantum physics to someone (I've spent as long trying to grasp them and failed) but it would probably only take 10 minutes for a political science concept, as much of it is relatively intuitive. Explaining political realism to someone would probably evoke a "Well, duh..." response, but it's the implications/flaws of it that are of importance. Developing the knowledge base and critical thinking capacity to identify flaws, alternative approaches, and overriding principles is a large part of what I think university can provide. For example, the main applications of a poli-sci degree are in policy and government(analysis/formulation), academia, journalism (political analyst/commentator), and apparently intelligence work. You could take a highschool grad and put him/her in any of those occupations and might do relatively well but the learning curve would be steep on the more esoteric stuff (terminology, paradigms, concepts, etc) and his exposure would likely be limited to the predominant approaches of whatever institution or organization he worked for.
That being said, it's likely just as possible that a degree can force "inside the box" thinking as much as "outside the box", which it's oft-touted to do. Economics (from what exposure I've had) seems to be one area which produces a uniformity of paradigmatic approach. I always hear the "universities just brainwash you into left-wing thinking" line (especially in relation to social sciences) but I've had quite a different experience and I'm at one of the most political (and left-wing) schools in the country (Concordia). Maybe political science is different, I can't say since I haven't studied the other social sciences in depth. I can count on one hand the number of poli-sci profs I've had that have had an identifiably leftist bias and of those, I can count only one or two that actually let it into their teaching. I've actually become more right-wing since I went to university (if you can believe it).
Anyway, I'll turn the rant off. (I hope I haven't derailed the thread... redirect if necessary. Sorry.
)
Better use can be made of the time available in High School - for those kids willing to utilize it. For those kids unwilling or unable to utilize the service -well there I do think there needs to be public subsidy of their "second chance" once they realize the need.
I agree that high school time could be much more productive. I'm not a fan of pigeon-holing kids too early on through occupational education "streaming", but a wider variety of courses and higher requisites for things like language, math, and the sciences would help. Develop the basic assets that help with any occupation while providing the means for exploring different areas (including trades, the exposure to which seems lacking in most high schools). More co-op programs would be great as well. The problem, as it always is, is funding. And of course, you only get out of it what you put in - no matter how many courses and programs you institute, you'll never be able to make the unwilling learn what they don't want to learn. I guess that's where your "second chance" idea comes into play and I agree that public subsidy is necessary (not necessarily FULL subsidy, but enough to make it accessible to a majority without imposing serious financial burdens), most especially for those who would otherwise be unable to go.
