Kyle Brady: Blog » Education

Education Is Not A Budget Solution [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:05:35 +0000

The California Legislature has become infamous for its inability to pass timely legislation or manage a budget, regardless of deficits or surpluses, and they have recently been using the legislative magic bullet to solve their budget woes: the public education system.

Whenever states have budgetary issues, they turn to cutting expenses they see as needless rather than handling the issue appropriately, or even cutting their own salaries and benefits – raising taxes on rich corporations that jump through loopholes to be tax-free is never an option, of course, and neither is substantially taxing individuals who receive exorbitant compensation. The solution six months ago for California was to cut funding for the UC, CSU, and CCC state higher education system, which resulted in higher tuition while reducing class sizes, enforcing mandatory faculty furlough days, and cutting funding to related programs. This, they believe, was a good decision that would benefit all of California, and they’ve done it again, with a possible 32% increase in tuition with admission denied to younger students and a continuation of the “higher price, lower quality” policy.

This, quite simply, is idiotic.

America’s public school system has become something of a joke, where reading is a difficult task and remedial math is the pinnacle of most students’ academic careers – cutting budgets to an already underfunded, understaffed, drowning-in-problems system is not going to help it improve. The rhetoric in Congress, as well as from President Obama, is that education is fundamental to the nation’s future and in regaining status as the most brilliant and scientifically-minded in the world. President Obama, in fact, has emphasized the importance of true higher education, rather than handing out degrees to those that bothered to attend class.

An understanding that education is important is helpful, until the political leaders decide that education is not important enough to be worthy of proper funding. This is a problem nationwide, and it must be stopped. Granted, the tuition increases for a California state school may seem low, even with an increase, but this system provides for those that are not financially well-off enough to be able to afford the Ivy League education many may wish for. Furthermore, decreased class offerings and furlough days not only detract from the quality of the education paid for, but make a student’s graduation significantly more difficult, often extending the time needed to graduate, which, by its very nature, puts further strains on an already strained system.

Politicians need to understand a basic, fundamental truth: America will not prosper as a nation with a pitiable sixth-grade reading level that can barely do algebra, let alone understand the principles of calculus or understand philosophical ideologies. Yet this is where the future seems to lie, as educational funding has been in a downward spiral for some time with an additional, and worrying, de-emphasis of outside-the-classroom learning by many modern parents. Those who cannot read cannot think for themselves, thereby becoming political and economic sheep – the precursors of which are already being seen.

Budgets are understandably constricted at times, but funding should be increased, rather than decreased, for education, regardless of the effect it may have on other sectors. Corporations can afford to pay higher taxes, especially in the current climate of tax-free companies, and exorbitant salaries, benefits, and programs can be either cut entirely or downsized. Politicians should not a rich lifestyle make, and yet this is often found to be false.

As if President Obama didn’t have enough issues to address in the first quarter of his first term, education must be quickly added to the slate. Rhetoric is simply not enough, and action must be taken – federal-level legislation to assist in the funding of the nation’s education, as well as a mandate that educational budgets may not be downsized, would be a decent start.

The Failure of American Colleges [OpEd]

Kyle Brady — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 07:05:28 +0000

In the midst of a national crisis, equally financial and moral in nature, why has little thought been given to the educational system? True, there are more college graduates than ever before and enrollment is skyrocketing, but is this truly an appropriate marker of success when these are students coming from school systems with abysmal competency rates in reading/writing, math, and science? Simply put, no.

American elementary, middle, and highschools typically cater to the lowest common denominator, wanting the slowest of the class to understand material rather than challenging, or even educating, the others. They do this for funding purposes, and teach for standardized tests instead of endowing these children and teenagers with knowledge both required and useful for their futures. Private schools are different than the public system, and usually have higher numbers in all the metrics, while also producing graduates that are at least partially intelligent and knowledgeable. However, the sad truth is that private schools are often expensive, and a majority of the country is educated in the failing public school system.

One day, these public school experiment participants graduate from high school, and a portion go off to college – inflated GPAs, SAT preparation, and the mass-application process ensures that those who wish to attend college will. Some of these teenagers are intelligent and educated, more likely because of natural inclinations than the school system producing a diamond in the rough, and they do well in college, going on to even higher education, research institutions, or a key position within an influential company. But it’s not the fact that they graduated that matters – what matters is their intelligence and thirst for knowledge.

Modern colleges are largely degree factories, providing a laundry list of requirements for the students to complete – many of which are not only not a part of their field of choice, but irrelevant in the overall knowledge perspective. These requirements are filled in a mostly linear fashion, with teachers, tutors, other students, study guides, and “open note” tests there to help ease the way, producing graduates that have, on the whole, learned nothing except how to regurgitate information and manipulate those in control of your future (Professors), managing to coast through four years of higher education without an original thought or problem analysis. This goes for both private and state universities.

There are exceptions, as always: accredited engineering programs are necessarily rigorous, many scientific disciplines of study are inherently complex, and higher math is difficult to even comprehend. But these programs are not the issue; the business, communications, journalism, liberal studies, economics majors et. al are the culprits of degree devaluation. These same foci of study happen to be the most popular – coincidence? Unlikely.

When a Bachelor’s degree can be attained by drinking yourself into a stupor four or more nights a week, writing the occasional paper, and taking multiple choice exams, the credibility and value of such a so-called education becomes questionable. Computer Engineers and Biochemists like to party as much as the rest of them, but more often than not they can be found doing homework, studying, or participating in extracurricular learning activities along with the rest of their academic peers.

It is by this very process that America has reached its current position where a college degree is preferred, if not required, for even the most uncomplicated and simple jobs. “College is the new high school” is a phrase oft spoken without the realization that this is not a compliment, and is instead a criticism of both the job market and the entire education process. Regardless of the level of personal experience, actual knowledge, or demonstrable intelligence, many organizations are simply not interested in hiring candidates without degrees, as a matter of principle. Except, of course, for those that buck the broken system and found their own companies, only to be praised years later for not receiving a college degree – an odd compliment considering they were ignored and looked down on until reaching a stratospheric level of success. These are the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs of the world.

Many majors themselves are a joke, where the only real skills to be learned are slick talking and a few core life truths, in addition to some controversial and wholly fabricated rulesets – the graduates of business and economics schools caused the collapse of the entire financial system because of faux knowledge, inflated self-value, and a lack of basic intelligence. The universities, however, continue to pump out such gems of genius without much change to the programs, or even a recognition of their complicity in the issue, which is, in itself, an indictment of the very system.

The American education system is a disaster just short of an entire failure, and the universities which undereducated high school students graduate to are largely just as short-sighted and worthless as their lower education counterparts. Consistently providing easy ways to acquire supposed verification of intellectual and overall individual value is of no benefit to anyone, let alone the graduates themselves. True reform starts at the education level, which can’t be accomplished with budget cuts, lowered expectations, and ignoring the problem.

This situation needs to be addressed before it drives the country, and the world, further into the arms of coddled and misled overgrown children.

The Kindle, Not All Bad [Old Content]

Kyle Brady — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:08:58 +0000

If you're reading this, then chances are you know about Amazon.com's Kindle, an e-book reader... kind of like an iPod for books. And you also probably know that it's getting major criticism for everything from it's battery life to it's product design to if it's even useful.

But one major market is being overlooked here, without anyone thinking about the potential effect it may have: students.

Textbooks are super expensive, and it gets even worse when you go to college. $350 for a textbook? And it's not made of silver? The biggest excuse for the price of textbooks (even if you buy them used online, they're still very expensive) is the printing. Hardback + many many pages + color + nice and glossy pages = high printing cost.

I guess that makes sense. So why don't you not print at such a high standard, and lower the prices a little bit, eh? BECAUSE YOU WANT MY MONEY!

Most high schoolers (at least the ones that actually want to go to college) carry a backpack full of textbooks to and from school everyday. Not one of those laptop backpacks, but a super-size LL Bean backpack that is made of that funny material that'll stretch, but not easily rip.

Doctors and parents complain this is ruining their children's backs. College kids refuse to bring books to class because it's so difficult to make that 30min walk across campus with 15 books in their bag, totaling the entire weight of a large hobbit.

Why don't we use less textbooks then? Oh, maybe because there's usually 2 books required, if not more, for the average college class, and rumor has it those "Barnes and Noble Campus Bookstore" places highly encourage the use of multiple books, especially when they're new...

Remember when laptops were going to revolutionize the learning process, about 10 years ago? How parents were fighting for their kids to be able to use laptops in the high school classroom? And colleges were promising to make the texts available via computer?

What happened to that? I know I haven't ever used a digital textbook in college, and I don't know of anyone else that does either. But the ones I do hear about are usually clunky: you have to install special software, only install once... sounds like something Microsoft would create, right?

So here's my solution. Since publishers are apparently incapable of publishing full-color textbooks in PDF format, and selling them iTunes-style (not through iTunes, but the same idea of online distribution)... which would considerably cut costs, since not only is the book not physically printed, but it's not shipped anywhere either... why don't we take advantage of the "I want to be popular" technology of the moment?

E-book readers like the Kindle (there are others, but this is the one to get the most coverage so far) could be the easy solution. Try this out on college campuses, where the kids have money to spend, and actually might want to learn:

Include as part of tuition a one-time fee for an e-book reader. Deliver this at orientation Freshman year.

All classes have the option to buy a printed version of a book, but are suggested to use the digital version, available for download at the appropriate location.

See how happy it makes everyone.

Continue this program every year.

Eventually stop even printing these college textbooks.

"Oh but what if it breaks?!?!?!" Easy answer. I'm pretty sure that if you have to pay anywhere between $100-300 every now and then, even if it's every year, to get your textbooks for a fraction of the cost ($30 Physics books anyone?), no-one is going to complain. So don't give me that IT crap as an excuse.

Maybe e-readers are not going to be very popular in general population for another decade or two. I mean, seriously, a digital library of books isn't going to impress anyone... no-one's iPod or iTunes library is of any interest either, right?

But at least target the market that would benefit the most: poor college students who hate paying for textbooks every semester. College textbooks have been a problem since probably the dawn of time, and now here's a way to alleviate the pain.

COEN Answer [Old Content]

Kyle Brady — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 04:43:11 +0000

I got a question from someone at my former highschool, Loyola Blakefield, about what COEN is like, so here's my answer:

------------------------------

Well, COEN is alot like a grenade... they just give a bunch of information to you, and wait for you to explode. And I'm not kidding... what I'll describe isn't just me, but friends from other schools in similar programs as well.

It involves a very broad study of science in general:

physics
- general
- thermodynamics
- electromagnetism

chemistry
- general

Alot of math classes:

calculus
- I through IV

discrete mathematics

differential equations

etc.

And then there's the COEN classes:

programming [usually in C]
- Intro
- Advanced
- Data Structures
- Embedded Systems
- ...and alot more...

hardware
- circuit design
  - intro
  - basic
  - advanced

And those are just classes I took in my first two years. I'm sure you've looked at course overviews, so I'll be a little more personal...

It's hard. Very very hard. I never had any problems in school (didn't even really study) until college, and then I quickly found out that I really am only good at programming. That comes natural to me, and everything else is pretty much an exercise in trying not to drown.

My first COEN requirement was a general chemistry class, only alloted to people in engineering. There were three sections of the class, but in my section we started at at about 200 students, and ended with around 80. The schools will try to weed out people who are "unintelligent" (read: stupid) and those who aren't dedicated, so they throw it to you fast and hard.

That being said, it's very interesting and exciting. I've had a pretty rough time for reasons other than my studies (I've had alot of "drama" with other things that carried over), so I'm not your typical engineering student, but I've enjoyed it. You have to push through the things you hate (like physics and chemistry) in order to do some of the things you love (like being awesome in your programming classes). You meet alot of very very smart people who may frustrate you in the beginning, but end up being your friends, or at least your study-buddies because you know they get the A's.

As for jobs... Pretty much anything. That's the beauty of an engineering degree, people hear the word "engineering" and it's like a key turns. Everyone I mention this to always responds "oh wow, you must be very smart" (or something similar). The same goes in the job field... you can run a business, work for NASA, or be a hobo. It really doesn't matter what you do, as long as it doesn't require an extra certification (like if you want to be an accountant or something).

I have friends that have already intern'd at places like NASA, Ebay/PayPal, and our school's IT department. But I, personally, have the intention to graduate and never need to apply my degree. I've been programming since middle school, and recently started my own legitimate business, with the intent to grow it big enough by graduation that I won't have to get a "real job". Another one of my friends, as a Civil Engineer, is going to work for his dad's structural design firm after graduation.

Like I said, you can pretty much do whatever you want.

So, I'll close this up for you, since it was alot. If you want to do anything computer related in the future, COEN sounds like a good fit for you (CS is ok, but it's alot easier and doesn't have that "wow" factor). It really doesn't matter if you know how to program or not, because they teach you. You just have to be an "engineering mind" that likes to figure out how things work, tinker, and doesn't give up easily.

The three physics classes I had to go through were some of the hardest things I've done in my entire life. Ever. But you know what? We all went through it, most of us hated it. Now we joke about it, and even though we hated it, when we read something in a newspaper, technical journal, or hear someone speak that involves detailed physics things... we understand it.

And that's exactly what engineering is about. They throw all this at you so that you don't necessarily use it... but that you understand it, and will be able to figure things out when you need to. In my experience, Loyola was a good step before going into an engineering program, because some of the kids coming from public schools had a harder time than the private schools...

All that money being used, eh?

Let me know what you think, and if you have any more questions. Or if I didn't make any sense at all.

--Kyle

School != Education [Old Content]

Kyle Brady — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:15:29 +0000

The people/person over here like to argue that, taking a page from 'Heroes' on NBC, "change the schools, change the world"... somehow that's not as catchy as the real version. While I tend to agree that if you change the schools, as far as teaching methods and the like, you directly affect the future... what about those of us that learn better outside of school? Oh, you didn't know we exist? Sorry, my fault, let me explain:

School != Education

Just because you go to school doesn't mean you're intelligent, or will come out of school intelligent. This is most true for college. Think about all those frat guys you know that get a degree in "accounting" or "communications"... the only thing that changes after 4 years is that they're fatter and start to wear suits during the day. There are exceptions, of course, but something tells me being drunk 5 nights a week, while "bro'ing up", is not really conducive to increasing your intelligence, awareness, or knowledge base.

Self-learners

And then there are those who learn better on their own (I'll call them "self-learners"). I am one of these people. For some reason, self-learners find the typical classroom setting very boring and slow, and would rather do the work on their own. This is not a cop out, or an excuse to be lazy, but reality. Speaking from personal experience, self-learners have a hard time absorbing information from the typical classroom setting, but when they are given the chance to learn on their own, especially for a purpose, they exceed all potential of any classroom ever.

Methodology

I don't know why this is true, but it is, and I know that my situation is not unique. When you can devour a book in one sitting, quickly learn a programming language by reading a manual, see the end results of an equation or proof before it's even begun... you find yourself wondering why you bother sitting in a classroom. Then comes the frustration when you don't do well on a test, because you learned the subject rather than learning for the test. Is not better to understand the overall breadth of the topic, and it's minutiae, than to learn a few small very specific pieces?

Examples

There are very obvious examples of the school system not being "form fitting" for many: Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Michael Dell, Einstein... the list goes on. Doesn't this say something? If some of the most successful, innovative, and intelligent people (in many industries) of this age dropped out of college... that seems to mean that college is not the answer for these types of people. The question then becomes: is it the school system? Or is these pockets of individuals? Where is a solution?

My Solution

I have a very simple solution, although I doubt it would ever be accepted by the college system. Allow full, complete, unmitigated independent study of any size or scope, and assign value to this. For example, someone who knows 4 programming languages, reads many 'high brain' books, and tinkers with electronics would be alloted the majority of a Computer Science degree, requiring only a few minor adjustments to an already full plate.

The problem with the modern collegiate system is that it's too rigid, too structured, too hierarchical. If someone wants a degree in Computer Engineering, it makes sense to take Physics, Chemistry, math, programming classes, and hardware classes... but English? History? Religion? All of these classes have been covered in depth since elementary school, how is one semester of U.S. History going to augment your knowledge from your years of history classes?

The other problem is that the college administrators assume that learning is a 'track', traveling from Point A to Point B to Point C. In some senses, yes... you can't design a computer processor without basic hardware knowledge. However, requiring 10 high level math classes in order to graduate as a Computer Science major? When most of your future will be involved with code? When has anyone used advanced Calculus in their lives, unless you're involved in the math or advanced science fields?

Schools are broken, and I want out. I've known this from Day 1 of college, and that's why I'm transferring to attempt to graduate faster... college classes cannot replace real world experience, and they will never be as beneficial as a subject learned by oneself for one's own purposes.