But a math degree alone does not prove they can communicate it effectively to students of varying levels of interest and ability.
In seventh grade math I got 2 C's and 2 D's for my quarter grades, a D on the final, so a D for the year.
In eighth grade math it was 2 A's, 2 B's, an A on the final...and A for the year.?ÿ
I suspect there was precious little difference in math knowledge between the two instructors, nor did I suddenly gain the ability to comprehend math over the summer, one just knew how to teach "me" better
I do think teaching skill should be one of the criteria used in hiring professors, but there is a big difference between teaching a seventh grader and University.?ÿ
Teaching adults doesn't require in depth understanding of how children learn, because the brains of the professors and the students are much closer to the same level of development. Also a proffesor doesnt need to deal with disciplinary issues, and kids who are forced to be learning agaisnt their will, or be responsible for recognizing signs of child abuse.?ÿ
Additionally, the level of subject matter knowledge required to teach at the University level is much higher, making a full education of education time prohibitive.?ÿ
I have taught University (mathematics) and was told I did a good job, but would never attempt to teach in a secondary (or lower) school.?ÿ
Just read this article yesterday in my State Associations publication.
https://umaine.edu/svt/wp-content/uploads/sites/105/2022/02/TOP03.pdf
Dr. Hermansen makes some good points, but I think most of us agree that the four year programs are not producing graduates who have the skills to start signing surveys.?ÿ
We are not in a vacuum. Other coutries have tackled the problem of repeating the same same 3 months of experience over and over again in a variety of ways. One way is a formal articulation period with licensed surveyor with. https://www.alsa.ab.ca/Protecting-the-Public/Registration-as-an-Alberta-Land-Surveyor/Articling-Pupils
@aliquot Yes.?ÿ As I pointed out, these are countries with 'free' or very heavily subsidized/regulated tuition rates.?ÿ I'm aware the tuition cost is significantly less in most of those countries.?ÿ But the scale of the debt problem doesn't seem to be as vast as might be expected.?ÿ Multiple articles show the same, but just one I pulled up (I'm sure numbers have changed since the article, but they are a comparison at the time):
- average US student debt for a bachelors degree - $28K
- average Sweden student debt - $21K
- average Britain student debt - $60K (I think the article is a little high on this one. several other sources say about $55K)
- average Australia student debt - $23.5K
So obviously the debt is not only from tuition.?ÿ It is for living expenses as well (which are often balled up as a package at US universities).
As I had already posted, I agree that there are many countries that have some good ideas about how to address the debt.?ÿ One of the more prevalent is an income based repayment schedule (something already available to US students).?ÿ This is touted in many articles when it comes to other countries doing things "better", yet when the US version is discussed the key take away is how difficult it is to figure out the paperwork for this option.?ÿ So some simplified paperwork might help the student debt problem out significantly by reducing defaults and cutting back increased debt based on interest accruing.
There are other EU options which leave much less or no debt.?ÿ But again - some of those options limit people (even by elementary school age).?ÿ I don't support the idea that we provide something free to some people by removing it's availability to others.?ÿ In an earlier post, someone hit on the idea of class stratification.?ÿ Education is a huge tool for change when it comes to moving socioeconomic class upward.?ÿ How well one does in school (and likelihood to graduate college) is heavily influenced by parent's level of educational achievement.?ÿ Remove the university option from one person at age 10 and you have limited it for that family for generations.?ÿ Debt taken on to get the education can also be a huge negative for that family as well, so I am not suggesting we shouldn't look at options for helping students address their debt.
The average US student has student loan debt of around 30K.?ÿ That is a far cry from the sensational stories on outliers that report owing 200K+ in student loan debt.?ÿ Another article had a chart showing the student loan debt balances per student and only 5% of students had a debt greater than 100K.?ÿ Around 85% had debt of less than 50K.?ÿ The average student loan balance upon graduation is set up to be paid off in 10 years with a payment of $300?ñ dollars per month with the average bachelors degree holder having a starting salary of around $67K.?ÿ On average, the system doesn't sound too bad.?ÿ I'm not saying it couldn't be better.
Dr. Hermansen makes some good points, but I think most of us agree that the four year programs are not producing graduates who have the skills to start signing surveys.?ÿ
The comparisons to lawyers, pharmacists, doctors, etc... just doesn't fit for me.?ÿ A "graduate of an accredited surveying program" (assuming he means a bachelors program) is someone who has completed their 4-year degree in a surveying program (again making an assumption he means accredited by ABET).?ÿ Overall, universities are accredited institutionally as well.?ÿ These regional or national accrediting agencies set the basic curriculum for a 'well-rounded' university graduate which includes the traditional liberal arts education.?ÿ So of the 4 years the surveying graduate takes, about 2 of them will be general education.
Whereas the lawyer, doctor, pharmacist etc.. complete the undergraduate work and then go on to three to four (or more) years of additional classroom study which concentrates solely on their profession.?ÿ So saying they get licensed right after graduation is not even similar to suggesting a surveying graduate be licensed after graduation.?ÿ Essentially their depth of knowledge in the profession they are entering is gained in a classroom while the surveyors is gained on the job.
While the experience obtained surveying lots might (???) be repetitive after 3 months, the licensing boards are supposed to look at the claimed experience and make sure it shows professional growth.?ÿ Licensure is not just about the technical aspects of get the deed, plot the deed, solve potential issues using the cookie cutter provided.?ÿ I doubt three months of lot surveys has you minimally competent for running a business or client communications (or in my opinion lot surveys - meaning client interactions, research, field work, analysis, drafting, and compliance with local/state regulations!).
Over 40 years ago, a medical student could get their student loan debt wiped out completely by signing a contract to move to a city under some population level in the State and practice there for a minimum of five years.?ÿ That was a tremendous aid to small towns across the State.?ÿ Some stayed in those communities and some moved on at the first opportunity.?ÿ There are similar programs for various professions in various locations.
Now, if there was such a program for land surveyors.....................................
There is a discussion of this very topic on californiasurveyors.org and it's quite lengthy.
@jon-payne The biggest problem is the introduction of profit seeking finianal institutions and for profit schools.?ÿ
The $200,000 debts are not the norm, but they do exist.?ÿ
The extended repayment periods, income triggers, and low interest rates in other countries mean tax payers are wiling to foot much more of the bill to ensure and educated workforce in other coutries.?ÿ
It's pretty easy to say for-profit colleges or universities are the devil when I'm not a professor at one of them.?ÿ I'm sure if I was an instructor I'd want a shot at hauling truckloads of cash home just like everyone else in the world.?ÿ I don't think putting a cap on tuition will do much more than drive away the best teachers, but I do think the blank check that the government gives schools in the form of student loans should be dialed back somehow.
And the liberal arts requirements definitely need to go away.?ÿ I remember when I was in the survey program in Denver one of my requirements was a multi-cultural studies class-- I think the choices were african, asian, and native american.?ÿ Complete and utter waste of time and money, but there was no way around it.?ÿ If I'm in a STEM field I shouldn't be required to take any of that garbage, because all it does is contribute to the tuition bloat.
Over 40 years ago, a medical student could get their student loan debt wiped out completely by signing a contract to move to a city under some population level in the State and practice there for a minimum of five years.?ÿ That was a tremendous aid to small towns across the State.?ÿ Some stayed in those communities and some moved on at the first opportunity.?ÿ There are similar programs for various professions in various locations.
Now, if there was such a program for land surveyors.....................................
Have a friend doing that right now.?ÿ She has a 5 year deal with a VA hospital and it will wipe her student loans clean.?ÿ?ÿ
Addendum to this winding post:
The Florida State Legislator that attempted to remove the four-year degree requirement for Florida PSM licensure has decided to retire, "saw the writing on the wall".?ÿ
And Florida Governor DeSantis has reinstated the original budget for University of Florida Geomatics School that others thought appropriate to cut.?ÿ
Trending Up.?ÿ
I apologize for the negative tone and the political comment.?ÿ
And the liberal arts requirements definitely need to go away.?ÿ I remember when I was in the survey program in Denver one of my requirements was a multi-cultural studies class-- I think the choices were african, asian, and native american.?ÿ Complete and utter waste of time and money, but there was no way around it.?ÿ If I'm in a STEM field I shouldn't be required to take any of that garbage, because all it does is contribute to the tuition bloat.
Putting on my flame-retardant suit here...
...STEM isn't any more special than other majors.
The education revolution that the space race kicked off sixty years ago has had some negative consequences. One of the most pernicious results is a large chunk of society, and STEM grads in particular, convinced that all they need to know is math and science, everyone else is dumber than them because they make lots more money, and stuff like history and literature are for suckers and fools. To be fair, business majors are almost as bad.
Yeah we need STEM graduates, but we certainly don't need arrogant myopic robots who can't even fathom the implications of their work beyond whatever specific problem they are attempting to solve. (Or business grads convinced that moving money from Column A to Column B and then back again is somehow a societal necessity.)
I couldn't stand the engineering grads whining about having to learn how to write in the same way I couldn't stand the literature grads whining about knowing how to solve for x. Suck it up buttercup, we're not asking you to write a bestselling novel or pioneer a new field of astrophysics.
But educated professionals need common ground and a fact-based worldview to function both separately and together in society. Siloed learning - and the rejection of any learning that didn't result in an immediate gain - is unquestionably a part of how we got to the era of "fake news" and alternate realities. It's also contributed to a lack of respect, and outright contempt, for people simply because they are on a different path than us or are competent in a field that we are not.
The intent of education, moreover, should never solely be about preparing individuals to clock in for a paycheck. That's what trade schools and on-the-job training are for. Not everything is about increasing profit margins for the private sector, which is demonstrably unconcerned with what is best for society - and by extension you and I.
I'm not suggesting the schools get rid of those liberal arts programs; I just think they should be elective.?ÿ You can't force someone to be interested in things they have zero interest in.?ÿ If the literature student wants no part of math then I'm 100% on board with that.?ÿ I actually find it wildly arrogant and obnoxious that a school administrator (or whoever makes these decisions) thinks they know so much better than the student that they should be able to ram material unrelated to the student's program of study down that student's throat.
As far as a worldview, well, a college or university is the last place I would trust to teach me something like that.?ÿ I can assure you almost every human on earth is perfectly capable of coming up with a worldview on their own.?ÿ But see, that's the actual problem, isn't it??ÿ The idea of having folks running around coming up with a worldview based simply on their day-to-day experiences scares some people.?ÿ When people get scared they seek to control the situation, and that seems to be what you are suggesting by forcing students to consume material they have no interest in.
coming up with a worldview based simply on their day-to-day experiences
That results in a very limited, even myopic, view. Education should broaden that view, putting experience in a larger perspective.
The word university is quite similar to the world universal.?ÿ The intent of a university, as opposed to a technical trade school, is to require some "cultural" type classes into all curricula requirements and to require some science and math in the non-technical curricula requirements.?ÿ Thus, music students get to take math and basic physics while you may find a veterinary medicine, architectural or engineering student sitting through some "gimme" classes in the College of Arts and Parties.
I'm not suggesting the schools get rid of those liberal arts programs; I just think they should be elective.?ÿ You can't force someone to be interested in things they have zero interest in.?ÿ If the literature student wants no part of math then I'm 100% on board with that.?ÿ I actually find it wildly arrogant and obnoxious that a school administrator (or whoever makes these decisions) thinks they know so much better than the student that they should be able to ram material unrelated to the student's program of study down that student's throat.
One could say the same thing about, well, anything. I find it arrogant and obnoxious that my parents made me learn how to change a tire - I had no interest in that. Or that my boss made me learn MicroStation, which I didn't care about. Both those things paid off in the long run.
How about I get all steamed up about the NCEES and the state Board "ramming" vertical curves "down my throat" when I have no interest in construction staking? I just wrote a software program (learned rudimentary coding in college and kept on going) to automatically generate cut sheets from alignment files.
I learned some pretty important (and beneficial) things that a younger me didn't think he needed to know.
Letting a student control their own education (treating students like a customer who is always right) is a bad idea, and always has been. Simply put, they don't know what they don't know, and those "arrogant" folks in charge usually do know what they don't know, because it's both their job and their life's work.
As far as a worldview, well, a college or university is the last place I would trust to teach me something like that.?ÿ I can assure you almost every human on earth is perfectly capable of coming up with a worldview on their own.
Sure, anyone can come up with a worldview, and most people certainly will. But unless they are at savant levels in multiple areas of study, as well as somehow magically able to discern fact from fiction - especially these days - it's going to be a pretty warped view, and almost certain not going to be a "world" view.
I would fully expect someone to change their mind on some things, or at the very least consider other perspectives, during their time obtaining a university education. That's half the point. If you don't at least think about changing your mind at some point, or maybe consider how others might hold a different view than your own, and take that into account as you go about your life journey, then why'd you go to school in the first place? The whole point of learning things is to take in new information and gain increased understanding. Understanding something doesn't mean you agree with it.
I can't wrap my head around the idea that I should have ignored every single educator in my life in favor of listening to myself and deciding things based on whatever thought was passing through my head at the time. Probably a good thing I didn't, because I would likely be dead if I had.
But see, that's the actual problem, isn't it??ÿ The idea of having folks running around coming up with a worldview based simply on their day-to-day experiences scares some people.?ÿ When people get scared they seek to control the situation, and that seems to be what you are suggesting by forcing students to consume material they have no interest in.
Sounds like projection to me. No one at any university is scared of folks having regular life experiences. But to suggest that the regular life experiences one gets in their own little corner of the world is all there is? There's a word for that - it's called "provincial", and it is literally the opposite of a true "world" view. Those experiences aren't wrong, bad, or irrelevant - nor are the individuals who have them - but they are not all that there is.
My uncle never left his small-town home in Texas. He thinks that the USSR still exists because his local community is still living in 1976, the moon landing never happened because his dad said so, and that medical care is bunk because he married young into an "organization" that thinks that medical imperfections are a reflection of an individual's morality.
He's a wonderful human being...just wrong on a lot of counts because he never got any outside information, and rejected whatever he hadn't already decided in his own mind. In other words, the opposite of education.
No one's forcing students to do anything they don't want to do. Don't want to get an education because you're scared you might get mind-controlled? Don't go to school. The "I'm gonna take my ball and go home" philosophy is a hallmark of provincial thinking.
coming up with a worldview based simply on their day-to-day experiences
That results in a very limited, even myopic, view. Education should broaden that view, putting experience in a larger perspective.
Everyone, college graduate or not, is free to sit down anytime and read about art history, you know that, right??ÿ What is with this drive to ram it down people's throats and then charge them money for it?
I think these requirements exist simply to prop up programs that don't have the demand to exist on their own.?ÿ If the goal is to make tuition more manageable then I think it's perfectly fair to argue in favor of letting programs fall off the menu if the demand isn't there.
One could say the same thing about, well, anything. I find it arrogant and obnoxious that my parents made me learn how to change a tire - I had no interest in that. Or that my boss made me learn MicroStation, which I didn't care about. Both those things paid off in the long run.
How about I get all steamed up about the NCEES and the state Board "ramming" vertical curves "down my throat" when I have no interest in construction staking? I just wrote a software program (learned rudimentary coding in college and kept on going) to automatically generate cut sheets from alignment files.
I learned some pretty important (and beneficial) things that a younger me didn't think he needed to know.
Letting a student control their own education (treating students like a customer who is always right) is a bad idea, and always has been. Simply put, they don't know what they don't know, and those "arrogant" folks in charge usually do know what they don't know, because it's both their job and their life's work.
The difference being your parents probably stopped forcing you to act a certain way when you became an adult.?ÿ It's been my understanding that this is why elementary, junior/high school is the way that it is with generic subjects like "social studies" and "government" and "science".?ÿ Kids get a dozen plus years of this broad, perspective-widening education before they even set foot in a university as a paying adult where they are then told they must learn how to write haikus or do algebra regardless of what they're there to study.
As for the rest, I think my previous post answered it.
So I guess that the low demand for surveying/geomatics classes should result in their demise?
So I guess that the low demand for surveying/geomatics classes should result in their demise?
Nope, it should simply be offered by only enough universities that the program can pay for itself.?ÿ I had to hunt around for the program that I went through and I didn't complain about that at all, in fact, I expected it.?ÿ You raise a good point though; where is the survey requirement for liberal arts students so their "perspective can be widened"??ÿ ?????ÿ
?ÿ
