A Real Change Coming?

[Kathianne]

Alternative credentials in lieu of degrees? Way past time it seems to me:

http://chronicle.com/blogs/next/2011...-in-higher-ed/

Think Different? Not in Higher Ed

September 22, 2011, 8:34 pm
By Jeffrey Selingo
When Steve Jobs introduced the “Think Different” advertising campaign on his return to the helm of Apple, in 1997, the slogan was not just aimed at consumers. It was also meant to inspire those inside the struggling company to innovate for the future.


Of course, what followed is now the story of one of the most successful companies in American history: a decade when Apple transformed the music industry with the iPod, the mobile-phone industry with the iPhone, and now the publishing industry with the iPad.


Apple succeed partly because it decided to take a different path than its competitors in the tech industry, and consumers followed. The history of business is filled with similar tales. Just look at what happened to Detroit’s Big Three after the arrival of Japanese automakers in the United States.


Many in higher ed believe the analogy with businesses doesn’t apply to them. They think they have a corner on the credential business and right now a credential is the ticket to most good jobs.


Whenever a new competitor enters the higher-education market and tries something different, those at traditional colleges criticize the newcomers as not understanding pedagogy. Just see the negative comments on recent Chronicle articles about online education or StraighterLine, which offers self-paced introductory courses but not degrees.


But what if higher ed lost its grip on the credential business? Perhaps then administrators and professors would be forced to think that there is more than one way to provide a college education.
The day when other organizations besides colleges provide a nondegree credential to signify learning might not be as far off as we think. One interesting project on this front is an effort to create “digital badges,” which would allow people to demonstrate their skills and knowledge to prospective employers without necessarily having a degree...

[ConHog]

Alternative credentials in lieu of degrees? Way past time it seems to me:

http://chronicle.com/blogs/next/2011...-in-higher-ed/

The thing that has always made me laugh about degrees is that most of the time employees don't even care what the degree is in, just that you have one. Now of course for some fields that isn't true. But in general, they just want to see A degree.

[Gaffer]

Something that's long over due.

[ConHog]

Something that's long over due.

I can foresee a day when physical colleges don't exist.

[Kathianne]

The thing that has always made me laugh about degrees is that most of the time employees don't even care what the degree is in, just that you have one. Now of course for some fields that isn't true. But in general, they just want to see A degree.

In most companies, they want to train the employees in 'their way' of doing things. What a degree has meant, at least in the past, was the ability to not only master the curriculum, but the determination to see it through. I'm not so sure about that anymore, considering both grade inflation and the poor performance of many degree holders.

Life experiences, whether in the military or from a variety of jobs and interests can provide ample opportunities to develop useful skills and the ability to utilize them in employment.

[ConHog]

In most companies, they want to train the employees in 'their way' of doing things. What a degree has meant, at least in the past, was the ability to not only master the curriculum, but the determination to see it through. I'm not so sure about that anymore, considering both grade inflation and the poor performance of many degree holders.

Life experiences, whether in the military or from a variety of jobs and interests can provide ample opportunities to develop useful skills and the ability to utilize them in employment.

I agree. Like I've said , I have four degrees and none of them have anything to do with what I did for a living. Nor am I likely to at this point utlize them. So ultimately what do they mean other than I had some free time, the National Guard offered to pay, and I'm pretty good at taking tests? Not much. LOL

[Kathianne]

I agree. Like I've said , I have four degrees and none of them have anything to do with what I did for a living. Nor am I likely to at this point utlize them. So ultimately what do they mean other than I had some free time, the National Guard offered to pay, and I'm pretty good at taking tests? Not much. LOL

20 years ago or more, my ex was the regional IT manager for AT&T. He was required to hire only those with at least a bachelors degree, though even those from prestigious universities in computer science were not cutting it fast enough. This was especially true when they were 'project hires' to write the codes for something like adding new area codes and making sure they'd work and be billed correctly. These were mainly going to be temporary workers for a specific project, thus there wasn't time nor incentive to put them into 6 months of training.

Pretty often he'd be interviewing someone that actually knew the program and could problem solve during the interview. Over and over again he'd find they were either self-taught or from DeVry, a technical institute. Agencies would send them, knowing their strong skills and hope that the degree requirement would be waived.

It took 5 years of fighting corporate HR, but he eventually came up with a 'test' for the hiring that could be used in place of a degree. After that? Nearly all were from DeVry and a few of those that self-taught.

Seems the same type of thinking and evaluations are behind this 'badges' idea.

[ConHog]

20 years ago or more, my ex was the regional IT manager for AT&T. He was required to hire only those with at least a bachelors degree, though even those from prestigious universities in computer science were not cutting it fast enough. This was especially true when they were 'project hires' to write the codes for something like adding new area codes and making sure they'd work and be billed correctly. These were mainly going to be temporary workers for a specific project, thus there wasn't time nor incentive to put them into 6 months of training.

Pretty often he'd be interviewing someone that actually knew the program and could problem solve during the interview. Over and over again he'd find they were either self-taught or from DeVry, a technical institute. Agencies would send them, knowing their strong skills and hope that the degree requirement would be waived.

It took 5 years of fighting corporate HR, but he eventually came up with a 'test' for the hiring that could be used in place of a degree. After that? Nearly all were from DeVry and a few of those that self-taught.

Seems the same type of thinking and evaluations are behind this 'badges' idea.

About the only areas where I would say a degree is a MUST today are

medical
legal
teaching
accounting

I DO want those people to have a formal education in their fields.

[Kathianne]

About the only areas where I would say a degree is a MUST today are

medical
legal
teaching
accounting

I DO want those people to have a formal education in their fields.

Actually the legal profession has a long history of the self-taught, Lincoln being the most famous example.

http://www.lawcrossing.com/article/2...-Made-Lawyers/

...Well-known attorneys such as Abraham Lincoln and Clarence Darrow achieved extraordinary success as lawyers without obtaining J.D. degrees. Other famous lawyers who never received J.D. degrees include John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; Benjamin N. Cardozo, Justice of the Supreme Court; Patrick Henry, Governor of Virginia; Daniel Webster, Secretary of State; and Strom Thurmond, U.S. Senator and South Carolina Governor. It wasn't until 1878 that the American Bar Association (ABA) began to establish itself as a force in the legal field and law schools began to become mainstream...

Medical has a longstanding with apprenticeships especially in rural areas, until the past 100 years or so.

Engineering, economics both seem to require a specific curriculum. So do most science based jobs, whether engineering or research.

[ConHog]

Actually the legal profession has a long history of the self-taught, Lincoln being the most famous example.

http://www.lawcrossing.com/article/2...-Made-Lawyers/



Medical has a longstanding with apprenticeships especially in rural areas, until the past 100 years or so.

Engineering, economics both seem to require a specific curriculum. So do most science based jobs, whether engineering or research.

Sure Medical and legal both have a long standing history of apprenticeship, but I just feel like with how much legal and medical information there is out there to know I prefer formal education.

[Kathianne]

Sure Medical and legal both have a long standing history of apprenticeship, but I just feel like with how much legal and medical information there is out there to know I prefer formal education.

and yet, regarding the legal, quite a few states allow one to 'read the law.'

[ConHog]

and yet, regarding the legal, quite a few states allow one to 'read the law.'

That's cool, I personally just wouldn't make use of an attorney who hadn't been law school.

[Kathianne]

Now to the area dear to my heart, education.

I really don't know what an 'education' degree is about. Seriously. Having taught in a pre-school-8th grade school for more than a decade, seems to me that their 'education' regarding practical knowledge really didn't amount to much. One could see with the 'new teachers' that they certainly had covered behavior plans and such, but when they didn't work? They were as lost as us secondary teachers who hadn't had more than a mention of such in one of our 3 required education courses.

Like the secondary teachers, when the university lessons failed, they had to deal. Most did and became teachers, some quit after a year or two. It wasn't 'burn out,' just an awareness that this wasn't what they'd thought it was and they couldn't adapt.

I'd really like to see universities emphasize a subject matter approach for education degrees. While many 'education majors'-note these are early childhood-5th grade teachers-take a minor in a subject area, it seems to me there should be a movement towards specialization.

Unlike the upper grades, the teachers could switch classes-not the students. The kids would have a 'math teacher', a 'reading' teacher, a 'social studies' teacher, a 'science' teacher. Their 'teacher' would be their specialist teacher, but also their 'homeroom' teacher. Unlike the upper grades where classes are 45-50 minutes long, the lower grades would perhaps be 20-30 minutes on most days. The obvious breakdowns would be teachers in 1-3; 4-5. Lots of possibilities for teaching across the curriculum and added benefit of spotting LD or ruling it out. Too many times a teacher/student issue results in labeling or rather mislabeling of students. Beyond personality conflicts and such, is the 'enthusiasm factor.' We are excited and interesting when addressing things that we know and like. The kids pick up on that.

How many teachers fail to teach a certain subject because they are uncomfortable with it? How many stick with the 'text' whether or not the students get it? All because they aren't truly comfortable. It's a problem, with an easy solution.

[chloe]

The thing that has always made me laugh about degrees is that most of the time employees don't even care what the degree is in, just that you have one. Now of course for some fields that isn't true. But in general, they just want to see A degree.

I wish what i wanted to do didn't require one

[ConHog]

Now to the area dear to my heart, education.

I really don't know what an 'education' degree is about. Seriously. Having taught in a pre-school-8th grade school for more than a decade, seems to me that their 'education' regarding practical knowledge really didn't amount to much. One could see with the 'new teachers' that they certainly had covered behavior plans and such, but when they didn't work? They were as lost as us secondary teachers who hadn't had more than a mention of such in one of our 3 required education courses.

Like the secondary teachers, when the university lessons failed, they had to deal. Most did and became teachers, some quit after a year or two. It wasn't 'burn out,' just an awareness that this wasn't what they'd thought it was and they couldn't adapt.

I'd really like to see universities emphasize a subject matter approach for education degrees. While many 'education majors'-note these are early childhood-5th grade teachers-take a minor in a subject area, it seems to me there should be a movement towards specialization.

Unlike the upper grades, the teachers could switch classes-not the students. The kids would have a 'math teacher', a 'reading' teacher, a 'social studies' teacher, a 'science' teacher. Their 'teacher' would be their specialist teacher, but also their 'homeroom' teacher. Unlike the upper grades where classes are 45-50 minutes long, the lower grades would perhaps be 20-30 minutes on most days. The obvious breakdowns would be teachers in 1-3; 4-5. Lots of possibilities for teaching across the curriculum and added benefit of spotting LD or ruling it out. Too many times a teacher/student issue results in labeling or rather mislabeling of students. Beyond personality conflicts and such, is the 'enthusiasm factor.' We are excited and interesting when addressing things that we know and like. The kids pick up on that.

How many teachers fail to teach a certain subject because they are uncomfortable with it? How many stick with the 'text' whether or not the students get it? All because they aren't truly comfortable. It's a problem, with an easy solution.

That's how our school does 4-6th grade. K-3 the students have one teacher because really they are just learning the fundamentals; but starting in the 4th grade we start pairing teachers with subjects. Our kids have 3 teachers, and as you suggested the teachers change rooms, not the students. of course beginning in 7th grade they have a different teacher for every course and they go from room to room.

I would like to see in the lower grades more emphasis on teaching children to socialize as opposed to pushing them harder and harder to learn subject matter earlier. How freaking young does a kid need to start learning Algebra , beyond the general concept anyway.

Next year we are going to put Spanish into our general curriculum beginning in 2nd grade. Just the basics of course, but our population in this area is becoming more and more Hispanic, so Spanish is almost necessary to socialize.

It's MY feeling that if we do a better job teaching our kids social skills in the early years then we could have more time to teach them the educational stuff later on in their schooling.