[KLUG Advocacy] Re: [KLUG Members] Dropping CIS enrollments

[Robert G. Brown]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 08:02:32 -0400, Adam Tauno Williams <adam at morrison-ind.com> wrote:
>>>>>People went into CIS for the money?!
>>>>Once upon a time, indeed! I can't remember who was President when this
>>>>was understood, but it happoened... honest!
>>>Wow!  I'll tka eyour word for it.
>>I looked it up.. the Presidents involved were Nixon, Ford, and Carter.
>Oh, those guys.  I only remember Carter for interrupting TV shows.
I campaigned for him, twice. 

>>>>I've heard about that on the radio -
>>>>The radio?!? What's that? :)
>>>Just an antique technology I have a fondness for.
>>My kids called it "TV without the pictures". They also called a Selectric 
>>typewriter "A printer without the computer".
>I had an 1812 Underwood!
>There was no confusing it with a "printer".
Well, IBM did automate the Selectic, and it became to 1050, then the 2741
terminals. They went along at a screamin' 15 CPS...Impressive at the 1965 
Worlds Fair, less so by the mid 70's.

>>>Maybe we should just move to a total-cert word and forget about degrees.  
>>>Offer something like a "basic literacy" cert, a "corporate ettiquette"
>>cert,
>>>or even a "Can follow instructions" cert. Then just pick applicants with
>>the
>>>right combo.
>>The problem with this system is that it's too modular, and it does not have a
>>core.
>True, but at least they'd mean SOMETHING concrete,  a college degree tells me
>next to nothing.

Sorry to see that, Adam. A college degree tells me SOMETHING, especially when 
I know where it came from, and something about that school. When interviewing
recent coll grads, it's usually quite helpful to learn something about thoe 
schools.

>>The main difference between "trade schools" and "certifications" and a 
>>conventional higher education is that the latter is intended and expected
>>to provide a broad grounding in subjects that are not nessesarily related
>>to the skills required to earn a living, or assure a potential employer that
>>an applicant is qualified to provide a given function to the organization.

>Yes, I understand and agree.  But this is 'in theory',  in practice this rarely
>happens; and a degree is no where near proof "that an applicant is qualified to
>provide a given function to the organization."

I'm sure it's possible to dismiss this difference as theory, but we're not 
going to do that in this thread. Granted that there are degree-conferring
schools that are not dilligent about standards, and granted that numerous
students pass through otherwise reputable schools without having had the right
stuff stick to the insides of their crania. This does not invalidate the 
disctinction between a certification (which ALSO has problems with quality 
assurance, in any case) and a degree.

>>The educated person of a century ago was schooled in history, at least one 
>>foriegn language, classical mathematics and logic, lierature, and writing.
>>The notion that one persued a higher education merely for gain would strike 
>>most educated peoiple in 1904 as quite crass. Education was a pre-requisite 
>>for good citizenship and participation in public affairs.
>
>Ok,  but this concept or principle is DEAD.
No, I dsagree, it is NOT "dead". It is very much alive, and one of the sources 
is that a degreed person is someone who knows how to research and things on
his own initiative, and otherwise manage himself in a responsible way. Perhaps
that message doesn't take with some, or in some places, and perhaps some don't 
need the formal stuff that college provides. Both are OK, they'll sort 
themselves out in time.

>Mentioning "citizenship" gets you at best rolling of they eyes, and at worst
>labeled as a wonky "liberal" (whatever that means).
Only among cynics and people who don't know, or buy into the real meaning of 
this stuff. You might say this is 90% of the population, and again, I'll 
disagree... it may be 90% of YOUR population.

>>Thr current system of education is largely a product of the GI bill and the 
>>post-WW-II era of mass education as the armies returned to civilian life. It
>>became clear, by the late 50's that people who didn't get a good education 
>>were going to fall behind. Now what we're seeing (say, in the last 10-15
>>years, perhaps more) is that it is possible to get a higher education AND
>>fall behind anyway, since a large mass of people has that level of education
>>(or so they beleive).
>Yep.  Only all my experience is in the last 
And from this experience comes your lack of trust in the system, I beleive.

>>To answer this demand, Colleges and universities scaled up, and in doing so 
>>became less exclusive, and more like job training centers. Some programs 
>>established good professional development standards, as has been related
>>about 
>>CPA's. Others (like many hard sciences) retrenched a bit, and the bar was 
>>raised for real contributors, to the Masters and Doctoral level (physics is 
>>a good example of this: try getting a good research position with less than a
>>Masters from a top school!). At the same time, schools of higher education 
>>diversified as new fields opened up in many areas in response to an explosion
>>of subjects, under many influences, everything from the Cold War to the Ci
>>Rights movement, globalization, and ethnic awareness.

>Thats why I mentioned the CPA.  It imposes some external barrier, seperate from
>the college, overseen by a third-party.
The CPA is one of many licenced, certified professionals.The same is true of 
Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers of various types. A lot of this doesn't have very 
much to do with knowledge of the subject....

>So if the college failed, the CPA test filters that.
....of any "failure" on the part of the college. Most accounting (legal, 
engineering, etc.) programs are harder than the certification tests in each
discipline, but each such test formally recognizes the indivuduals suitablity 
to practice the profession at hand, from the point of view of a body that is 
considered legally beyond reproach. State governments, for xample, formally 
recognize these certifications; in many states the profession cannot be 
practiced without them, and they also permit reciprocity among states for 
certain legal functions.  Very LITTLE of this has to do with mastery of the 
topic at hand.

IT-oriented certifications have no such recognition, and legal items such as 
testimaonym affidavits and so on are treated by the courts (for example) very 
much as other expert testimony, not something that is by definition certified 
to be true, binding, and correct.

>>Certification directs modular, specific training in a particular set of
>>skills, 
>>a working knowledge of how to use them, and when. While that's useful, it's 
>>not the same as a higher education, and it's simplistic to think that one can
>>or "should" replace the other. In practice, the two can complement each
>>other. Perhaps the next generation or so we'll see that.
>I hope so.

At the moment, I think that degreed professionals are given more weight in 
these things (rightly or not), as they are presumed to know all of those 
things as well. I am almost constantly amused at how most people think of this
kind of knowledge as some sort of hierarchy... if one can program, laymen
think one can also put computers together, install networks, bring errant 
keyboards and mice back to life, and make all manner of buying recomanedations.

							Regards,
							---> RGB <---