School and education systems debate/discussion

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**queen_annes_revenge**

Overread wrote:
Home economics - life skills - even sex education can be classes that most students and teachers tend to treat as a bit of a "lax" period.

You don't get graded at the end, there's no test there's no pass and there's no fail. So there's no real pressure at either end of the scale. Students also often feel that "they know it all anyway" in those types of class.

I think that whilst I'd not want them to shift into a full "this is test zone pass fail" I would think that there's likely an attitude change toward those classes which is needed. A core part might well be (esp in the case of life skills and sex ed) ensuring that teachers are better trained, educated and equipped for those lessons. Since often as not they appear to be given to any teacher with a time slot for the period to teach the students.

I also agree that the University degree has been sold as a golden ticket. The problem as I see it though is it was sold as a golden ticket to both employees and employers. So its raised a whole series of generations who think that they have to get a degree to progress AND a whole series of generations who think they need to have staff with a degree to get good staff (or to progress staff up the scale). It's an immensely effective system for boosting student numbers in university education (and student loans) even if people are both ends feel that the university teaching isn't actually giving the employee "real" skills for their job.
I'm not denying the value of seal learning and research methods, but at the end of the day most of what a uni course teaches is how to read multiple sources and write an essay. Skills that could be taught and gained through life or through a training course for those who have need of those specific skills. Just like if you're a land worker your employer will put you through specific tool/machine training if its required and will ensure that your training tickets for existing skills that are required, are kept up to date.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

cuda1179 wrote:

You see, that's just a pity. My parents insisted I learn to do the following things with proficiency before I moved out: 1. Balance a Checkbook 2. do my own taxes 3. change a tire 4. change my car's oil 5. read a paper map 6. sew a queen-sized bedspread 7. cook a full meal, from scratch, using NOTHING instant 8. Save half of what I earn 9. Wash my own clothes.

My parents were old-school, but both insisted that I learn both the "man chores" and the "woman things". Being broke, smelly, and malnourished is no way to go through life.

Another aspect I think we shouldn't forget is repetition.
Changing a care tyre is something that most people still call the service people out for. Not because they can't do it, but because they've only done it that one or two times in their life before. So whilst they can do it they can't remember how to do it. It's EVER so easy to do something daft like position the jack wrongly or to do the nuts up in a circle and not alternating.

Actually on that subject I think the highway code and basic theory of driving should be taught at schools. Highway code from a young age, basic driving theory once you're getting closer to being eligible to take a test. For something that is a key life skill for the vast majority of it it baffles me that, typically unless you're a farmer, you won't sit in a car to drive or train or really learn anything about it, until you're in your late teens or twenties. Even then the amount of hours many spend behind the wheel being trained is tiny - some even manage to "cram" in a few weeks with an intensive course and pass.

Roads and cars are a big part of modern life. We should be teaching students how to read roads, navigate roads and how to behave on the road from a young age. For any that might ride a bicycle its already providing a valuable amount of training in specifically how the road works and also how car drivers are thinking and assessing situations.

PS with all these essential skills we are adding for teaching - any of us got any idea how to fit all the extra into the school system? UK side state schools tend to finish at about 3-4pm whilst private tend to finish closer to 5pm. Of course this balances out with state spending more weeks at school so that both balance out the total number of hours. One could claw back those hours by simply increasing the term time for private and increasing the school day length for state. In fact when you consider how many parents have to both work now it baffles me that we keep state schools ending early and thus forcing one parent to have to leave work early or juggle their work hours to be away before the end of the work day. Of course I guess one reason for it is to try and reduce traffic congestion, but we only do it in the evening; come the morning everyone is heading to school/work at the same time.

Government also had a vested interest in keeping people in education as long as possible, as people in education aren't counted as unemployed.

When I went through college it felt like a pipeline to funnel everyone into university. It was only my parents pointing out other options like the military to me that stopped me from being sucked into a uni hole. now I'm in a better life circumstances than a lot of my pals who did.

**endlesswaltz123**

There's a change starting to happen though with the anti-university mentality that genuinely talented kids are no longer going to university as they view it negatively. They are then not challenged academically and in their own core values and critical thinking in the career/training path they then choose... Then the population again is less educated (not to say you cannot get educated via vocational routes, more lack of development of true higher order thinking)

Fundamentally, many students for the good of society need to be progressing onto university. The practice of universities must change though. Lots of degrees can be binned, as going to university is not worthless in itself, it is the degree, skills and subject knowledge you actually get that is what the value is going to be measured against.

A ridiculous example in sport is a a degree in 'golf management studies'. Totally, and utterly useless, because you really need a PGA apprenticeship qualification, that covers all the important aspects of the degree and more... That is one of probably thousands across multiple subject areas that can be binned off, then university degrees will be worth the money again.

Also, and in the UK specifically, let's face it, university for many students is for the experience, not necessarily for the degree....

**Crispy78**

Overread wrote:

I think that whilst I'd not want them to shift into a full "this is test zone pass fail" I would think that there's likely an attitude change toward those classes which is needed. A core part might well be (esp in the case of life skills and sex ed) ensuring that teachers are better trained, educated and equipped for those lessons. Since often as not they appear to be given to any teacher with a time slot for the period to teach the students.

Absolutely agree with that. Even at the reasonably prestigious UK private school I went to, some of the teachers were horrifically ill-equipped for this. Nearly 30 years ago now but I still remember in excruciating detail having to give a talk to the rest of my class (of 13-year-old boys) on the buying of condoms. I still escaped relatively unscathed compared to the chap who had to talk about, um, 'self-gratification'...

**nfe**

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Fundamentally, many students for the good of society need to be progressing onto university. The practice of universities must change though. Lots of degrees can be binned, as going to university is not worthless in itself, it is the degree, skills and subject knowledge you actually get that is what the value is going to be measured against.

I'd content that outside of vocational courses, it's usually the skills alone, or sometimes the skills plus the level of award. The specific course and the subject knowledge is largely irrelevant in most contexts unless you want an academic career or fancy being a teacher. As such, in most circumstances, it really doesn't matter what you study. The specific degree will carry some weight where people with similar levels of achievement are compared, but even then where you studied is generally far more important than what.

Also, and in the UK specifically, let's face it, university for many students is for the experience, not necessarily for the degree....

Is that really a problem? Firstly, that's half of what uni is good for. Second, I've several colleagues who went to do History or English or whatever because they just wanted to get smashed and have fun for four years but took an archaeology course for a laugh and are now working academics.

**endlesswaltz123**

You are arguing that any degree should carry weight, but if over saturation of degrees don't give any benefit to the masses, and combined with some degrees being actually functionally useless and/or not fulfilling a requirement to perform a specific job re: the golf management course I mentioned, then that perpetuates the mind set that a degree is useless, as you don't get any benefit out of them, and thus makes the mind set that university is useless.

I am arguing for people to go to university, but only if you are going for a direct reason and also not being ripped off/sold down the river by the university who are trying to make quick money with bogus degrees that have been made up to justify an increased intake of students.

I didn't say anything was wrong going to university for the social aspect, I just mentioned a large contingent do so, which means if that is their main reason then actually, a degree unlocking doors for you career wise isn't their main concern and shouldn't necessarily expect it to. There's many caveats to that conversation anyway, there are just as many students on the right degree, who party hard and achieve as those who party hard on a functionally useless degree. It's their choice and their money, they can do as they please, it just shouldn't be used as a beat stick by the 'university is a waste of time' crowd to justify their thoughts when their main reason for going to uni is not to learn effectively.

**nfe**

That seems a little confused, as I read it. You appear to be arguing both that people should be able to go ahead and study whatever they fancy, for whatever reasons they wish, but also that prospective students should have a 'direct reason' and that universities should not offer courses that are 'functionally useless'. Obviously defining 'direct reason' or 'functionally useless' is necessary here, and doing so presents additional issues. Could you clarify? I'm not sure how you'd identify 'Benefit to the masses' or 'bogus degrees' either. The golf example needs fleshed out a bit, I think,

For what it's worth I'm not arguing that any degree should carry weight - I don't think they need to. What I say above is how their relative weight tends to be measured in practice - and it isn't according to the subject matter or field.

**endlesswaltz123**

nfe wrote:
That seems a little confused, as I read it. You appear to be arguing both that people should be able to go ahead and study whatever they fancy, for whatever reasons they wish, but also that prospective students should have a 'direct reason' and that universities should not offer courses that are 'functionally useless'. Obviously defining 'direct reason' or 'functionally useless' is necessary here, and doing so presents additional issues. Could you clarify? I'm not sure how you'd identify 'Benefit to the masses' or 'bogus degrees' either. The golf example needs fleshed out a bit, I think,

For what it's worth I'm not arguing that any degree should carry weight - I don't think they need to. What I say above is how their relative weight tends to be measured in practice - and it isn't according to the subject matter or field.

The direct reason can be the social reasons. You just accept that you may not get any benefit out of it job market wise if you are doing it for that reason. In addition to that, if you are going for that reason, you can be accepted onto a none functionally useless course still...

It can still provide prospects and legit skills to people who do want to pursue that career etc... Basically, no joke degrees is my main argument, if you are going for the experience and not the end goal necessarily, then that's your choice, I'm not hear to stop you or talk you out of it.

Without going into extreme detail, you need a specific PGA qualification for most serious golf related jobs. You get that from the PGA in the form of an apprenticeship of sorts, not a degree in golf management. It's the same as doing a BA in football sports coaching to be a professional football manager... In the UK you need your UEFA pro license to do that, so you go through UEFA's education program, there is zero need or use in you going to university if that is your goal unless you wanted to, however because universities want good numbers, they will bend the truth and state that the degree will help them, when it won't really, it may give them skills, theory and practice, but they can attain that in the official UEFA route due to the time taken to attain a pro license it's a 5 year process as it is....

The same analogy would be going to university to do a BA in plumbing, and not being a qualified plumber at the end of the degree... Functionally useless.

* Not saying a BA in plumbing exists mind, and if it does, I'm fairly certain that you would be a qualified plumber at the end of it, or even to get onto it, that's just a comparable example I made up to emphasise my point.

I also think we need to be aware that not all degrees and universities are equal, for my degree I effectively was required to be a capable lab technician by year three otherwise I wouldn't be able to pass, let alone succeed in that year. Some degrees and some institutions do not emphasise such practical skills and marry them with theory... Some degrees you cannot do that as they don't require any practical skills, but some it could be easily embedded within but is not.

**A Town Called Malus**

Googling Golf Management Degree I find this course available at Birmingham.

The course is taught in collaboration with the PGA, you can apply for the PGA membership whilst doing the degree.

**endlesswaltz123**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Googling Golf Management Degree I find this course available at Birmingham.

The course is taught in collaboration with the PGA, you can apply for the PGA membership whilst doing the degree.

Yes, this is why I know it fairly well, it's in my local area. You can apply for PGA membership without it though, and you need PGA membership for plenty of jobs within golf... It's a functionally useless degree in terms of getting to the end goal, it may help, but it won't get you there on its own.

**A Town Called Malus**

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
Googling Golf Management Degree I find this course available at Birmingham.

The course is taught in collaboration with the PGA, you can apply for the PGA membership whilst doing the degree.

Yes, this is why I know it fairly well, it's in my local area. You can apply for PGA membership without it though, and you need PGA membership for plenty of jobs within golf... It's a functionally useless degree in terms of getting to the end goal, it may help, but it won't get you there on its own.

What you just said applies to any job which requires membership of a professional organisation.

If a theoretical job requires membership of the Institute of Physics then a 1st class physics degree helps but doesn't get you there on its own.

Or, to use a real life example, Chartered Accountancy. Doesn't matter how well you did in your Accountancy degree, if you are not a member of the professional organisation and have achieved the professional certification, you cannot get a job as a chartered accountant. But that Accountancy degree is going to be extremely useful in getting that certification.

**endlesswaltz123**

Not quite, as there are specific practical skills that must be demonstrated as part of the PGA, that you learn from the PGA itself... Additionally, you do not need a formal qualification to enter the PGA program and attain membership, I assume that is almost always going to be the case with most other professional bodies, it is certainly the case for mine BASES.

By the way, the PGA membership accreditation is roughly 5 years.... That's another factor to consider, including internships. That's a hell of a lot to do along with completing and paying for a university course... When you don't have to pay for and complete the university degree alongside it...

**Matt Swain**

In America many people are citing a school to prison pipeline system that seems designed to funnel many kids, especially minority ones, from school to privately ran for profit prisons.

Some will ask "Shouldn't this be in the conspiracy theory thread?"

Nope. There's a lot of documentation that provides solid evidence to base this theory on. The wiki has this to say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School-to-prison_pipeline

Also the fact that kids have been deliberately put in for profit jails wrongfully solely to make money off them is a given in america. A young black girl was sentenced to such a facility by a judge for a unflattering social media post about a teacher, the judge was later convicted of taking kickbacks from the detention facility for sending as many kids as possible to it in exchange for bribes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

So hey, you may think your education systems have issues, but can you top this?

**Xenomancers**

The entire design of the western education system is flawed. It intends to make "well rounded" individuals which is essentially useless beyond the basics.
Children should learn to read and write and do math and get a general history lesson about the world.
By the time they reach 6th grade they should be on a specialized path. With 50% of all schooling directed about something they have shown aptitude for and 50% of time directed down a path of their own interests and or something society has shown an explicit need for.

At the end of high schooling every single student should be leaving with an employable skill or 2. Secondary school should literally be on the job training/ apprenticeship for those that have shown aptitude.

**hotsauceman1**

Xenomancers wrote:
The entire design of the western education system is flawed. It intends to make "well rounded" individuals which is essentially useless beyond the basics.
Children should learn to read and write and do math and get a general history lesson about the world.
By the time they reach 6th grade they should be on a specialized path. With 50% of all schooling directed about something they have shown aptitude for and 50% of time directed down a path of their own interests and or something society has shown an explicit need for.

NO!!! lets not let 11 year olds be forced into a path just on their interest. I love dinosaurs when i was a kid, if i was forced into a path to be a Paleontologist or biologist, i would be miserable RN because i hate the heat and other stuff.
As much as there are problems with our education. the best thing there is, is it allows us to choose our own path in life free of what other people say we need or what they want.

**endlesswaltz123**

100%... Why spend so much money on specialist training, to force them down a path, that many will switch away from.

I don't disagree that more vocational skill based learning should take place, but the curriculum needs to be diverse.

**Overread**

Both approaches have problems.

Those who are pressed into careers from a young age can find direction and achieve a high level of skill before their 20s. However they might lack the freedom of choice and might be pressed into something that they later dislike or which isn't as best suited to them.

Meanwhile with total open education until you're hitting your late teens/20s then you run the risk that you will take longer to develop skills and also that you can very easily find yourself without a key skill or focus.

I'd say this latter area is a bigger issue today because of the way the job market has evolved. Losing long-term employment style and focusing more on short term contracts and shifting between places of employment and even types of employment creates a less stable working situation for many which can leave people getting lost "adrift".

**A Town Called Malus**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
The entire design of the western education system is flawed. It intends to make "well rounded" individuals which is essentially useless beyond the basics.
Children should learn to read and write and do math and get a general history lesson about the world.
By the time they reach 6th grade they should be on a specialized path. With 50% of all schooling directed about something they have shown aptitude for and 50% of time directed down a path of their own interests and or something society has shown an explicit need for.

NO!!! lets not let 11 year olds be forced into a path just on their interest. I love dinosaurs when i was a kid, if i was forced into a path to be a Paleontologist or biologist, i would be miserable RN because i hate the heat and other stuff.
As much as there are problems with our education. the best thing there is, is it allows us to choose our own path in life free of what other people say we need or what they want.

At 11 I wanted to be a surgeon because I loved M*A*S*H. At 28 I'm an astrophysicist.

Most people have no idea what they want to do until much later in life. A broad general education which allows kids to experience a wide variety of disciplines before they focus on what they enjoy and are interested in most is what we should be aiming for.

Education is not for the sole purpose of filling neat little boxes of drones in the economy.

**hotsauceman1**

Lol Malus, it was the same for me, But it was because i watched Scrubs.
Also, what happens when those things we trained those kids to be go obsolete. What if, we trained kids to be mechanics, then suddenly, cars change so much that only the people who built them, can fix them.....like it is right now for some cars.
Right now, at 28, I am a proffesional in my field of ABA soon to be starting a masters.
I would never have found this field i love and im passionate about, if I was told as a kid, go work on X, while all the other "Smart" students go on to do things you can do.
Im a firm believer that, barring intellectual disability, anyone can do anything they want and learn anything(This is ofcourse barring various barriers to power that are set up, but thats a different discussion)
Anyone can learn anything if they wish.

**cuda1179**

Matt Swain wrote:
In America many people are citing a school to prison pipeline system that seems designed to funnel many kids, especially minority ones, from school to privately ran for profit prisons.

Some will ask "Shouldn't this be in the conspiracy theory thread?"

Nope. There's a lot of documentation that provides solid evidence to base this theory on. The wiki has this to say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School-to-prison_pipeline

Also the fact that kids have been deliberately put in for profit jails wrongfully solely to make money off them is a given in america. A young black girl was sentenced to such a facility by a judge for a unflattering social media post about a teacher, the judge was later convicted of taking kickbacks from the detention facility for sending as many kids as possible to it in exchange for bribes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

So hey, you may think your education systems have issues, but can you top this?

An aspect of the prison pipeline that even my activist friend's don't like to acknowledge is the gender discrepancy. You think being Black is bad? Try being male. White men are more likely to be effected by the school to prison pipeline than AA Women

**Matt Swain**

cuda1179 wrote:
Matt Swain wrote:
In America many people are citing a school to prison pipeline system that seems designed to funnel many kids, especially minority ones, from school to privately ran for profit prisons.

Some will ask "Shouldn't this be in the conspiracy theory thread?"

Nope. There's a lot of documentation that provides solid evidence to base this theory on. The wiki has this to say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School-to-prison_pipeline

Also the fact that kids have been deliberately put in for profit jails wrongfully solely to make money off them is a given in america. A young black girl was sentenced to such a facility by a judge for a unflattering social media post about a teacher, the judge was later convicted of taking kickbacks from the detention facility for sending as many kids as possible to it in exchange for bribes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

So hey, you may think your education systems have issues, but can you top this?

An aspect of the prison pipeline that even my activist friend's don't like to acknowledge is the gender discrepancy. You think being Black is bad? Try being male. White men are more likely to be effected by the school to prison pipeline than AA Women

Well, so what? Does it matter if males are being targeted more than females? And remember the black girl who got 4 months for a mean post on social media. But so what? White males drastically outnumber black females, of course they're going to get hit more with this. But even if males are being targeted more, so what? The fact it's being done TO ANY KIDS AT ALL makes it a terrible thing that should be stamped out immediately and brutally.

**BuFFo**

Not Online!!! wrote:
I am advocating for mandatory classes in philosophy, not the deep stuff, but just logic.

Agreed. Schools need 10000% more Aristotle and Ayn Rand, and -100000% Plato and Kant.

We'd be colonizing Pluto in 10 years from now if we did this tomorrow.

**Ensis Ferrae**

To try and veer the topic back away from potential lock territory, some thoughts I've often had in terms of "reforming" the education system (at least in the US):

So, When my daughter was entering kindergarten, she was in the first class of kindergartners to go through my state's adoption of Common Core. As I was in school at the time, I used my school resources to figure out what the feth common core is, as by that point there was already a lot of negative press surrounding "new math".

Here's the long and short of it, from the academic perspective: People who were, in a university setting, training future teachers (ie, the doctors of education) were having reports from their STEM colleagues that far too many American students entering their classrooms with aspirations for advanced engineering degrees, or other STEM related degrees relying on very advanced math programs, were incredibly far behind, despite many of them having on record, taken Calculus and Trig in high school. . . How were they behind? Well, the US system, "old math", had taught them merely how to fill in the correct answer. They did not understand the mathematical principles and laws functioning behind something as simple as 2+2=4.

So, a group of them began researching things, and coming up with a new pedagogy, new way of teaching STEM subjects that would bring US born students back inline with certain European and asian peer countries students.

A new method was found, and was in a late testing phase when, unfortunately, the capitalists got ahold of it, and forcibly made money on it. Quite simply put, the "product" wasn't finished yet. Couple that with the way the entire thing was foisted onto K-12 educators meant you had thousands of teachers across the US who had no idea what to do with the information they were given, and the first couple years they really were winging it. Obviously, the Kindergarten and 1st grade teachers had it the easiest, but the point still remains that because of the way the whole system was rushed out left many parents feeling less than positive about the whole thing.

Anyhow. . . I say all of that to get into the further idea: Roll more practicality into as many subjects as we can. . . Everyone agrees we need math, why not use more cooking examples, or actually cook using the math in class? Imo, we should already be spending less time on nonsense like Shakespeare (seriously, no one but a college professor who wrote their thesis on the guy really gifts a rats arse about the subject, and reading shakespeare does NOT get anyone interested in reading classics), and spending more time on adult life preparation.

**hotsauceman1**

The problem with common core IME is that when it comes to people who do not know that mehod, are then expected to still teach or help(Aka, parents) the kids, So you have this pushback from parents who dont understand it, with the old joke "Math is Math"
When i saw common core it made sense to teach that way TBH

Also, To the Shakespeare thing, Classics are classics for a reason, because old white rich men said they are. Shakespeare is fine, and his stories shaped a few, but there is no reason to keep bringing him up anf forced to read him. I think forcing kids to read alot of this old stuff, rather than what they want, is a big reason quite a bit of adults dont like reading for leisure.

**Matt Swain**

Hey, if i had my way schools would teach critical thinking and have mandatory courses on recognizing and resisting propaganda and advertising.

But george carlin explained why that can't happen unless I somehow acquire superhuman powers equal to superman's and literally conquer america by force.

**nfe**

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
The direct reason can be the social reasons. You just accept that you may not get any benefit out of it job market wise if you are doing it for that reason. In addition to that, if you are going for that reason, you can be accepted onto a none functionally useless course still...

So essentially 'direct reason' is 'any reason whatsoever you like? I don't think I can be following you, because 'direct reason' seems like you mean something more tangible?

It can still provide prospects and legit skills to people who do want to pursue that career etc... Basically, no joke degrees is my main argument

Yeah, I get that this is your argument - but defining 'joke degree' is tricky. You're largely conflating it with 'functionally useless', right? How do we determine functions? Or useless?

You have the golf example but it remains a bit vague. Which specific jobs require PGA membership and how would John Doe's golf management degree demonstrably not help if he and another applicant for a given job both have said PGA qualification but only John has the degree?

I know very little about work in golf. I know a couple pro golfers and some greenkeepers (who did relevant degrees) but I've never spoken to them much about it. I know lots of sports coaches, though, and you specifically align it with doing a BA in football sports coaching to become a football manager. I don't think anyone does such a course because they think it'll get them a job as a football manager, because most people who'd do such a course know a little about football, but doing it certainly helps you get jobs that your coaching badges alone will not. I actually have a friend who is the head coach at a US school as a direct result of doing exactly this. I know a couple others with sports coaching degrees with good jobs in the SRU. These provide more linear routes to work than a history or English degree, for instance. Maybe you think these are also functionally useless? There are plenty people out there who think all humanities are irrelevant degrees, but my guess is you don't. Your other example is one you invented.

Given the above, I'm not sure we're much closer to putting a finger on what a 'functionally useless degree' is? Is learning for its own sake functionally useless? Is learning to conduct research and communicate results functionally useless? What benchmark does a degree need to reach?

There is certainly a problem with universities deliberately misrepresenting courses or exaggerating their 'marketplace value'. However, at legitimate established universities, academics proposing new courses have had to jump through many, many hoops to demonstrate to administrators that said course contributes to students skills across a whole range of categories. There is almost always a need to canvass opinion from students and academics that have/are studying or teaching similar examples. Often there is a need to engage with relevant professional bodies or employers. Increase this by a couple orders of magnitude for entirely new degree programmes. I think it's pretty hard to honestly and objectively describe almost any degree as functionally useless - even if you strictly define yhat as making you employable in a given field (which I think we agree is far too narrow a definition?). It might not do what you wanted it to do, but that's drastically different.

**endlesswaltz123**

It's really really simple. Just like you need to be a qualified plumber, to be a plumber, for many many professional golfing jobs (or most likely to perform specific tasks as most are multi-role), you need accredited PGA membership, club fitting in a shop for example, or determining/verifying player handicaps.

It really is not that vague, that is a direct requirement. The University course does not give you that, it doesn't even fulfil within it's modules all of the requirements to achieve that accreditation, and it doesn't fulfil the time length of achieving that accreditation. It may help, but it's a waste of money, as you do not need to go to university to achieve that.

**nfe**

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
It's really really simple. Just like you need to be a qualified plumber, to be a plumber, for many many professional golfing jobs (or most likely to perform specific tasks as most are multi-role), you need accredited PGA membership, club fitting in a shop for example, or determining/verifying player handicaps.

It really is not that vague, that is a direct requirement. The University course does not give you that, it doesn't even fulfil within it's modules all of the requirements to achieve that accreditation, and it doesn't fulfil the time length of achieving that accreditation. It may help, but it's a waste of money, as you do not need to go to university to achieve that.

No I understand what you are arguing on that front. I'm asking you to demonstrate why it is functionally useless. Can you show, firstly, that if only one of two candidates for Golf Job A has said degree, that all other things being equal this would not help them in any way, and secondly, that it provides no other skills of any kind that have any functional use?

What are the criteria for 'functionally useful' and if you assert that 'social reasons' alone are sufficient for study, why does functional usefulness matter in any case?

**endlesswaltz123**

If you need PGA membership and accreditation to get the job, and there is no requirement to have a degree, then the degree is not useful to a person trying to get that specific job.

Just to be clear, getting accredited by the PGA is not CHEAP. It usually requires 2 years at least of free full time internship. You usually have to demonstrate a serious background and dedication to golf prior to starting the process.

It is functionally useless as it absolutely is not required. If you are going to argue that spending £27k+ on top of achieving the above is a good investment just for the extra line on the CV that the degree will provide, then I really do not have anything more to say... The person will be more educated, but they won't be more capable to perform the job.

Just to add, one of the partial reasons I know about this is because I had a student that was investigating doing this degree who played golf at a fairly high level, but knew he wasn't going to get a career as a player. Travelling around the world playing, he asked the question a lot, all course managers said the degree wouldn't help they just want PGA accreditation... Anecdotal I admit, but it makes sense. It's a very practical job and learning process that is akin to an apprenticeship.

I'd argue personally if you were still intent on going to Uni as you wanted a degree on top, branch out into a related but different field, general sport science, sport therapy etc. Compliment your apprenticeship with additional learning, the golf management course just picks and chooses specific elements from the PGA accreditation that you will be taught through the apprenticeship anyway.

**nfe**

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
If you need PGA membership and accreditation to get the job, and there is no requirement to have a degree, then the degree is not useful to a person trying to get that specific job.

Just to be clear, getting accredited by the PGA is not CHEAP. It usually requires 2 years at least of free full time internship. You usually have to demonstrate a serious background and dedication to golf prior to starting the process.

It is functionally useless as it absolutely is not required. If you are going to argue that spending £27k+ on top of achieving the above is a good investment just for the extra line on the CV that the degree will provide, then I really do not have anything more to say... The person will be more educated, but they won't be more capable to perform the job.

Just to add, one of the partial reasons I know about this is because I had a student that was investigating doing this degree who played golf at a fairly high level, but knew he wasn't going to get a career as a player. Travelling around the world playing, he asked the question a lot, all course managers said the degree wouldn't help they just want PGA accreditation... Anecdotal I admit, but it makes sense. It's a very practical job and learning process that is akin to an apprenticeship.

I'd argue personally if you were still intent on going to Uni as you wanted a degree on top, branch out into a related but different field, general sport science, sport therapy etc. Compliment your apprenticeship with additional learning, the gold management course just picks and chooses specific elements from the PGA accreditation that you will be taught through the apprenticeship anyway.

Not required is absolutely not synonymous with functionally useless. I feel you're getting really locked on this singular example and missing the main issue, however, so probably best to stop repeating a question about it.

Can we just get into what defines 'functionally useless'? If it's simply 'not a requirement for a given job' then that's the overwhelming majority of degrees. It may be your position that almost all degrees are functionally useless, but your posts don't feel like it.

If 'not required' isn't a sufficient definition of 'functionally useless' then what is? 'Not good value for money' seems similarly simplistic. 'Does not meet criteria it promises' might be closer but you're still going to learn things and I think you accept learning for it's own sake as valid? If we're to discourage students from pursuing useless and 'joke' degrees, how are we to identify them? You could make a case for a given degree being functionally useless to a particular person with specific goals, but that surely doesn't invalidate it for everyone, and we're in any case still left with the worthiness of all learning.

**Not Online!!!**

BuFFo wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
I am advocating for mandatory classes in philosophy, not the deep stuff, but just logic.

Agreed. Schools need 10000% more Aristotle and Ayn Rand, and -100000% Plato and Kant.

We'd be colonizing Pluto in 10 years from now if we did this tomorrow.

Whats wrong with kant?
No my point of is really the baseline logical structures .
Morale Philosophy and other sub directions should be talked after that is secured , not before.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Matt Swain wrote:
Hey, if i had my way schools would teach critical thinking and have mandatory courses on recognizing and resisting propaganda and advertising.

But george carlin explained why that can't happen unless I somehow acquire superhuman powers equal to superman's and literally conquer america by force.

Depends a bit, in the structures in place imo.