Re: Maybe I will graduate someday...

On 149khz erimess shrieked:
Ophidian wrote:
erimess wrote:

I wonder how could I missed this topic. This topic has to do with me also
(not that I am trying to steal the spotlight or making this a "me"
subject). But I'll try to pitch in a little of my own perspective. Don't
know if it'll give you (Phid) a little of better light.

Unfortunately. Don't get me started. The school likes to show off
how many people have high degrees, which totally turns me off. The
higher the degree, the worse the instructor.

This might be true--a higher degree would probably suggest an increased
fondness for research, since that's what gets you the high degree.

It might also suggest a fondness for puffing up one's resume. :-)

Had an interesting conversation with one of my students today, who is
ready to drop his stats class. He thinks he needs the degree (not
particular classes -- the actual piece of paper) in order to "better
himself." I told him he wouldn't be any better for having that piece
of paper -- that was just for putting on the resume to hand to people
and show off. But he thought that was "bettering himself." No,
that's putting something on a piece of paper to market yourself to
prospective employees. His definition of bettering himself seems to
be getting a high-paying job. No, the high-paying job is so that you
can support yourself and your family, and has nothing whatsoever to do
with what kind of person you are. I think people are "better" when
they have interests and pursue things -- but it doesn't have to be
college. I don't think he ever quite got the difference between what
is simply a necessity of life, and what is the kind of human being he
is. Income is merely a means to an end, and shouldn't be the ultimate
goal.

I think this one is way too true for my generation. A lot of people are
"very" skeptical about the value of education, so they think all they need
is that diploma to get them started. I digress; so throughout my college
career (I consider it a real full-time job :-p) I actually focus on
understanding of the subjects learned rather than making grades.... It
really doesn't do me much good in term of finding a job (though I must say
it has much to do with many factors), but I am quite confident about my
ability, which many of my peers who got into Fortune 500 firms cannot
match.

Phid, however, I am not trying to convince you not to look at things
realistically. Even getting a job is a politics in itself (there would be
even more politics when you get the job, which is something I'd rather
avoid at all cost). Getting the most of your education has more to do with
how you see yourself rather than how others see you. If you believe people
must hire you because of your own assessment of yourself, then you'd be
very disappointed. They don't know you. All they could see is some
external, superficial stuff such as resume, degree and how well you can
brag, and they have to make a decision based on that. They know it's not
the most objective way of hiring, much like how teachers feel about the
standardized test used in schools. Keep in mind personnel managers have to
cover their own asses too, so they usually don't take risk by using their
gut feeling, but using some dumb criteria the company developed that would
hire one and only one kind of employee they think can be productive (which
is a joke in itself).

With those two contradictory ideas being mentioned, you have to find a
mid-point between truthful to yourself and get real. I chose to be who I
am, so at least I do not lose my self identity. The older I get, the more
important it has become in my life. If you are like me, who does not
believe in god(s) or a supreme being, our ability is all we could depend on
in time of difficulty.

However, I've heard some interesting counterarguments--mainly that once
someone is in college they shouldn't need good instructors, that a good
library and "proximity to brilliance" should be all you need if you
already have "learned how to learn" in high school.

I disagree. I know how to learn. Granted, I had to teach myself how
to learn (given that it is not done very well in earlier schooling,
despite having gone to a better school), but still, at this point in
my life I know how to learn. And some things I can learn perfectly
fine on my own. Those are generally things I already know something
about. But there are other things, especially if it's something
reasonably new to me, that I need someone else to explain it. And
explaining things and teaching how to think about stuff, is something
that is lost in schools, including colleges. When I do need someone
else's help in explaining something, I need someone who is good at
explaining, not just good at doing. I took an advanced accounting
class on an independent basis (couldn't fit it into my schedule), and
even though I was familiar with the subject, after the other classes
and 10+ years of experience already, I really missed out not having
that class and having the teacher, who is one of our *good* accounting
teachers, BTW.

I am like erimess. I need good teachers. And I've been blessed with good
teachers throughout my life. All schools teach the exact same thing, but
good-natured, dedicated teachers will teach you something you can only
relate but not to be found in books. In some way, it takes your observant
mind to listen /with your heart/ to get some of their rather cryptic
messages that have something to do with their life experience. People who
had only the intent of getting a degree would often miss those
"off-tangent" stuff.

I have no idea what you are studying right now. I studied business in
school (finance, to be specific), and we were literally bombarded with how
to well-adjust ourselves, and know terms like "rat king" "self-fulfilling
prophecy" "mental maturity" and other dark stuff that books don't tell you
about business, so we all can be well-prepared. You just have to decipher
that from what the teachers said. Sometimes they are just self-pitying,
but it's your objective to learn from their experience and know how not to
repeat it.

On the other hand, lots of college students haven't, so consequently
colleges have to make up for it with good instructors. At my old
school, the low level intro calculus, physics and chemistry courses were
all taught by outstanding instructors who were devoted to teaching,
whereas more advanced courses tended to be...ahem...taught be less
teaching-focused professors ;-) I don't think they advertised the
"instructor quality," though.

Too true. And I tutor students from all over the country -- this is a
problem everywhere. But I don't think the good instructors should be
*only* because they need to make up for what was lost prior to
college. They should be good instructors anyway. Hopefully anyone
doing a job is good at what they do, at least to a reasonable extent.
(Why would I want to do a job that I'm lousy at?)

I don't consider that being a problem. If the school don't put their best
teachers in their most basic and therefore, most fundamental classes, then
the building blocks cannot be established properly. Keep in mind schools
have limited resources so they can't possibly have all the best teachers to
teach from beginning to end.

Moreover, teachers who know about advance topics usually have other studies
they have to do for themselves and their objective would be shifted away
from students. Some of them aren't very articulate to begin with. I would
even asume geniuses tend to be "intuitive" so they can't explain to you
their "abstract" idea, but it's natural to them that "how could anyone miss
it?". And such mentality and teaching style would confuse a lot of
students who do not think in an abstract manner. I would say the U.S's
colleges' requirement for professors to do some major study (which
increases the prestige of the school) can take a hefty toll on students'
education. I was in UC Berkeley before, and I do not find their
instructors any better than my school's.

<snip>
It reminds me of this book I have called Do What You Are. It's a
career book, back from the days when I thought there was some
brilliant magic to help me figure out what I *really* wanted to do.
But the book isn't really about what areas you like. The author
claims you probably already know that. So it's more about deciding
what specifically you can do in that area that would fit your
personality. An example he used was knowing you're interested in the
justice system. But without knowing what it would be like to do any
particular job, how would you know *what* in the justice system you
would like? i.e. do you want to be a cop or detective, a lawyer, a
judge, a court reporter even? I understand exactly what he means. I
wanted to be a teacher. I had the right idea -- I enjoy teaching a
lot. But going into secondary education, teaching big classes,
dealing with the crap that goes on in public schools, etc., would not
be for me. Even the hours. I'm not a morning person and can't see
myself having to be at work at 7:00 a.m. So teaching was the right
area -- but wrong way to apply it. I do much better with individuals
and smallish groups. I want to teach adult night courses too, which
will mean expanding into a big bigger smallish groups, but they're
usually limited to about 15.

An office atmosphere works well for my friend -- she likes that. So
she had that part right. But she discovered she wasn't interested in
the subject matter itself. I thought I'd like taxes too, until I took
the class and realized it was just *too* much crap -- far beyond what
I thought. So I gave it up.

One cannot do what they don't want to do. I gave up telling my boss that
she can only fire people but cannot make people do things they don't wanna
do. Her level is probably way too low to understand what I mean (so she
keeps firing people at her own will...). Management is never about
fulfilling her ego, or play god. It's about making compromise for common
interests....

Anyways, back on topic.... Know what you like. I remember when I was in
college, most people who were majoring in Finance hated it. They were only
there to get a job. Back to what I said, you can't lose too much if you
can still retain who you are. If you love what you do, even when your boss
is stupid like mine, at least you can keep yourself going. I hate doing
sales from the very beginning so it doesn't help me one bit that I wanted
to quit all the time. To use a more explosive example..., my job stability
was literally a time bomb. I only needed something to trigger me to quit.
That's not exactly a career, isn't it?

It's true though--it would be nicer, for example, if engineering school
had given me more experience working on large projects with teams, since
I expect that's all I shall be doing when I get into industry. The
senior design project was close, but it was still a pretty small team.

What about internships? It's probably going to be difficult to
replicate that if you don't have enough people (of the same level) to
make a bigger team.

This is an excellent example. If I'd been interested in engineering,
which I'm not, it would've never occured to me that I'd have to work
on large projects with teams. More importantly, it would never have
occured to me that I wouldn't like it. Without work experience, I
would've never realized exactly how much I HATE working in teams. So
you see, I'm not talking about the subject area (engineering in this
case), but the actual conditions of working in the field. That's the
part you can't always understand until you do it. Just like I
couldn't know I'd hate working at a CPA's office if I hadn't done it.
I prefer working privately for companies, or at least having my own
clients -- technically "public" accounting but working privately.

I love working in teams, but it has to be a small team. I applied for EA
once and their team is like 200 people. I don't understand how could
anyone make such a big team productive. More people means more opposing
opinions (which can be good..., until a certain point) and therefore, more
politics (which is NEVER good).

Anyways, to Phid. I think everyone needs a little bit of mentoring, so
working in a team setting may be a good start if need to know-how. You
just need to find a person who is dedicated and not very political (those
tend not to teach their "skill of trade"). If you really hate politics, I
can tell you right away, skip older establishments. Older companies have a
very set company culture and sometimes it's just full of politics and
bureaucracy that would drive you nuts. (but then it's very easy to drive
me nuts...)

--
Ashikaga a28
.

Relevant Pages

  • The Brilliance of Our Teachers
    ... The Brilliance of Our Teachers ... The query noted that, for a science course at a local school, there ... One of those instructors explained the concepts clearly ... interested in mathematics and observation and in the correlation of the two ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • The Brilliance of Our Teacherst
    ... The Brilliance of Our Teachers ... The query noted that, for a science course at a local school, there ... One of those instructors explained the concepts clearly ... interested in mathematics and observation and in the correlation of the two ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • The Brilliance of Our Teachers
    ... The Brilliance of Our Teachers ... The query noted that, for a science course at a local school, there ... One of those instructors explained the concepts clearly ... interested in mathematics and observation and in the correlation of the two ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • The Brilliance of Our Teachers
    ... The Brilliance of Our Teachers ... The query noted that, for a science course at a local school, there ... One of those instructors explained the concepts clearly ... interested in mathematics and observation and in the correlation of the two ...
    (sci.physics)
  • The Brilliance of Our Teachers
    ... The Brilliance of Our Teachers ... The query noted that, for a science course at a local school, there ... One of those instructors explained the concepts clearly ... interested in mathematics and observation and in the correlation of the two ...
    (sci.physics)