« Is the Russia-America Global CoDominium About to Begin? | Main | A well-deserved tribute to Nick Rowe »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

It seems perfectly reasonable to spend $35 billion a year, and four or more years of two million students' lives, without any idea of what the process is accomplishing, and any attempt to change that would just lower the dignity of the professoriate.

In other news, pushing spaghetti into cans is still hard. (I'm sorry, I know that it's a homely, working-class metaphor, but I can't get over the cynicism that forty years of observing supply-side education has instilled in me.)

Erik - I hear you!

I dropped out of HS to read, books like safeguarding suitcase nukes. It would take 8 years to get 2.5 years worth of RF coil engineering from school. Picking my favourite fields, geoneutrnios, RF coil design, entangled radiowaves, all-optical computing and quantum structural health monitoring, I've located 50 authors of papers.
Waterloo has 10. Toronto and Ottawa 7 each. Sudbury 4. London 3. Cgy 3. Mtl 4. Van 3. Kingston 2. And Victoria, QC, Sherbrooke, Wpg, Fredericton, Hamilton with one. Toronto, Mtl, and Ottawa would have the bulk of the bad AI research. After AI gained momentum school for all is no longer a good principal.

I don't know the Canadian situation, but in the States curricula are already pretty constrained. I have university degrees in chemistry and accounting (long story).

The requirements for a chemistry degree are spelled out by the American Chemical Society. Basically, you need a year each of general, organic, inorganic, physical, and analytical chemistry. Physical chemistry won't make much sense without some physics, which won't make much sense without multivariate calculus. So that's the major's requirements almost everywhere in the States, with degree-level expectations set by regional university accreditation boards.*

My accounting degree was likewise constrained by the requirements of the Certified Public Accountant licensing exam, the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy, and university accreditation boards. There just aren't a lot of degrees of freedom in the system.

*For US universities, accreditation is theoretically optional but practically mandatory. There are national accreditation boards, but they don't count because nobody trusts them.

Some potential students already have the course material or life material. For J.Trudeau, it was pointless to take French courses; I've read 3 good works: Candide, Mort D-Arthur, and Tin Flute. The best disaster response courses I've seen were in the U of Ottawa communications degree; our media would respond to tech risks better than GWB or Japan officials. Instead of McGill, those courses and quantum courses would be best. Carleton's medical imaging isn't up to snuff though. At UBC, there are TRIUMF courses and STITCH: eventually RF Coil imaging will be wearable.
I also considered, ahem, Ryerson with many Letters of Permission. Ryerson is more liberal in chooses your courses. But there still too many prerequisites until you finish two years of forced courses. A solution is testing allowing one to choose an elective instead. A turbulence course for aerospace covers naval design too. There is usually a programming course with science/engineering. Mechanical/medical-equipment engineering aren't even one seventh RF Coil and sensor design. Of my 3 HS elective, Graphic Arts was bad, Autocad gave me my first knowledge of hackable infrastructures 5 years before temp labour. And foods has been handy since the last PM. The Power Mech classes needed rocket motors, and Plastics needed aerospace. But the library had several nuclear war books; is maybe the best University feature. There was only MB space for an international college student with their cheap gvmt.
Canadian student in several cities are smart enough to realize being a good person matters. Technological risks, Cdn and UK history, psychology or cognitive science or neuro courses, should be part of the core. You can get psychology from English (learning communications). Chastity through an adventure would be good for the texting generation. The ON correspondence Grade 12 english course requires either reading a weak person or a hick. It could be replaced by Robocalypse or Black Destroyer (or Ovid), getting kids ready for change. Outside of the USSR, middle management has disappeared with automation. Students know they might not have a middle class job waiting for them. Russia teaches a bit of shops classes which ensures manhood and flexibility. I'd put my junior high GATE class against any Catholic University when it comes to the reasoning that breeds communications and I wouldn't rant against these risks if they were PM sometimes.
Curriculums can be fixed to give a gentleman motivation. The LEI can be turned into a small component of itself. The US Census Industrial Production stats can be winnowed to focus on things like sounding rockets and supplies in Faraday Cages and GMO-ed mushrooms.

Was York with flexible curriculum. I extended the above 50 Canadian paper/patent authors to 100 globally, tallying some non-lead authors for key papers. USA 45 (NYC 7, SF 5, Phil 3, Pitt 3, Boston 3), Germany 8 (Erlangen 3), China 7 (Wuhan 4), UK 4 (Oxford 3), Switz 4, Moscow 4, Japan 3, Paris 3, S.Korea 3, Neth 3, Italy 3, Tel Aviv 3, Italy 3, Fin 2, Can 2, Iran 1, Bulg 1, Australia 1.
Cambridge has become an AI centre while Oxford did well here; I wouldn't want good Cambridge learning outcomes. If it is to hand students off to employers, your students are trained for an obsolete economy. Again, These outcomes are suggesting U of Ottawa's disaster response courses. A common core of two semesters here and another two semesters of options seems reasonable. It would be nice to be able to take a 2 year course streamlined to my chosen career: inventing new medical imaging, or lithosphere imaging. I was thinking of taking a lab 7 times at U of T for seven different superconductor experiments before I figured out RF Coils. There will be an experiment to shine a (neutrino making) laser at a laser and get light. It wasn't funded during 'Nam, and I guess the researcher got too old. An A-Bomb researcher might've found this effect in the '60s, and mixing neutrinos in the Sun also suggest it. But by the logic of training researchers for employers, his most important almost contribution is nothing and his Nuclear Bomb simulations or whatever, are everything.
The above list suggests the USA's multinationals have been a good strategy. Wuhan maybe has been attracting China's best opticians for 60 years. TRIUMF and RIM's donations built us up apart from medical imaging hubs. The latter requires scale. Wpg was maybe the 4th best medical imaging hub a few years back, but has fallen back. And MTS wasn't as big as Telus. From what I can tell, the correct course is to brain image away WMD professors and employees, and hire such that know or are learning solutions. It is training and testing with a helmet. It is communist to care about average researchers.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this site

  • Google

Blog powered by Typepad