BTW, I think there is a broad generalization equating engineers to people who can't think or adapt to situations. On the contrary, they are constantly evolving with change as a function of their industry.
How about this alternate explanation ? People with a liberal arts education wake up a few years after graduation and realize that they are falling behind in earnings and quality of life. They then either start businesses, take up a sales job which puts them on a business path or go to graduate school.
pelihu wrote:
There was a recent article regarding US education compared with education around the world. I don't remember where I read it, but it talked about differences in educational goals.
Since the 60s, people in the US have been complaining that US kids trailed kids around the world in math and science skills. Originally, they trailed the Russians who had taken the lead in the space race. There was a comparison at the time of a Russian youth studying math and playing chess while and American youth prepared for a school play. It continued with Germans, Japanese and now Chinese, Indian and Korean. For at least 50 years, American children have trailed in terms of math and science skills, but American business continues to lead the world.
An educator in Korea (I think, it could have been Japan, I don't remember) commented that their society educated their children to score well on tests, while American children are educated to explore different ideas and ways of thinking. The article argued that this type of creative thought, rooted in a liberal arts education, was why American has been able to stay ahead over the past 50 years.
The reality is that unless you want to teach or something like that, majoring in English or Philosophy or History does not teach many practical skills that might help you find a job. These disciplines teach a way of thinking about and analyzing data that can be applied to a variety of endeavors. Now, if education ended at this point, then these people would be up the creek without an ore; but as preparation to deal with a variety of challenges in business and otherwise, they might be more able to think about and adapt to new situations better than someone trained in a more rigid manner, say an Engineer.
These are generalizations of course, but think of it this way. Is it better to have a kid memorize a bunch of books, or is it better to teach him a method of reading quickly, analyzing effectively and concluding decisively? Well, the answer in this hypothetical is obvious, and is somewhat analagous to cultures like China and Korea that from an early age force their children to memorize things. Sure, they are good at math because they have been spending all their time since childhood memorizing formulas, but are these the types of thinkers that will do well in strategy, marketing or leading a company? Possibly, but not because of the their training or background.
Unless you are pursuing a terminal degree, learning an effective way of thinking is more important than any actual knowledge you might acquire.
[/quote]
close
29 Jan 2007, 22:14
