Rocket Science: Agreed! What I'm perusing is a very innovative-demanding field.
I then learned that in this field a degree is worthless. People only care about
'what you know, can do, how well you can, and how fast you can'. I've learned
the vast majority of what I know on my own anyway. I still learned some
important things in the classroom and still will, but the majority of my skills
have been learned on my own.I think the real problem is not having
enough professors. It's always about 'cutting costs' to save on tuition.
Meanwhile new construction, new facilities, new books, new new new. We don't
need state-of-the-art everything. That's just schools feeling like they need to
be competitive. But the students really need more teachers and smaller
classes.We also need to stop wasting people's time by having to take
certain general classes that will never benefit me. Many have, and I'm grateful
for them. But adhering to an inflexible system is very frustrating. One wonders
why costs are high when I have to pay for classes and books that I don't need.
Professors requiring newest editions is like a deadly plague of financial waste.
Costs are high because we require so much wasted time and money from students.
Raybies,You're comment is so absolutely true- expect one sentence-
"because what's being done now in CS is not cutting edge next
week."Truth is, what they teach now is already outdated half of
the time. Computer science changes daily. Platforms, languages, 'standards' of
any kind really- they all change more frequently than college systems will keep
up with. Colleges want to standardize and format how they teach students. This
takes time and puts them a semester or more behind.What should be
taught is to throw students into the bucket and tell them to climb out on their
own. Rather than standardizing how to teach about an object that never stops
moving. A better approach would be to place students next to the object and tell
them to keep up. If they can't handle that, they can't handle the 'real world'
of computer science anyway.All the information is online. More
up-to-date information is online. And this is coming from a guy can't code at
all, who's merely spent time on MSDN or figuring my way through python scripts
to get something I wanted done, and so on. I beta test everything (typing this
from Win 8) but in no way can code. If even I realize the reality of your
statement, colleges need a massive reality check.
My kids use the Khan website to understand what their teachers fail to teach. It
really is great.Hopefully Udacity will make education more
affordable to others who really want to continue, but lack of funds and time
prevent it. This way, they can study at their own leisure.
Isn't it interesting that anything that has a potential of bringing down the
cost of education is so often discounted, discredited, bad-mouthed, or
campaigned against by certain groups until it is destroyed or given-up on. I
hope this effort is successful and I hope it takes off into other subjects.University accrediting agencies will probably refuse to allow college
credit for such classes or degrees that include such classes because it will not
further their interests. Yes, true education is priceless, but the cost of a
college education has gotten out of hand while many university administrators
balk at most suggestions for cutting costs.USU is a good example of
a University that serves itself while not serving the students well - basic
required classes students can't get into requiring additonal semesters to
complete a degree, excessive fees on top of tuition, etc.
The dirty little secret about computer science is that the majority of the work
skills you need once you get that "degree" in computer science you
will find on the web for free... Programming languages are changing so fast that
it is nearly impossible to keep current in the old academic model. Even this offering has a potential to be outdated in a year or two... because
what's being done now in CS is not cutting edge next week.