Morning Brew: April 6th, 2009

Agreed.


I come from Quebec and thus I am a product of the CEGEP system.

That two year transition period enabled me to mature and create proper work habits.

I found that when i entered university in Ontario many of my classmates either flunked out, cheated or struggled with the demands of university comming right from High School.

Finally, forgive my spelling and grammer.

That's a good point too. Those who were unprepared did poorly and few finished the program. We started with 30, ended up with 18. And most of those that were left were usually at the bottom of the class. One actually got fired from their non-paying co-op job.

Richard; 100% of sales were donated to Sick Kids, so no, it wasn't just a lot of sales to the coffee shop.

As for the "unprepared" university students, I notice a distinct phenomena of romanticizing the time that you spent going through these systems. I bet you can go through newspapers for the last 40+ years and run into the same article like this over and over again - substituting GenX, Hippies, Boomers, or any other generational categorization in here. Articles that are written with such a broad stroke like this are frustrating. Are there lazy students? Absolutely, tons of students are deadline-oriented and "scrape" by. Are these the majority of the students? No way. Is this problem possibly caused by the major societal push that you have to go to university to be successful, leading to students that shouldn't be there in the first place? Maybe that's the real issue to take a look at.

From the Sun
http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2009/04/06/9020156
"We're here to encourage people not to buy Israeli wines because most of these wines are made in the occupied territories," said Carmon, a Jew who was raised in Israel. "This is a peaceful way to put some pressure on Israel to make real actions toward peace."

Great stuff!

I hate the OAC argument. I'm from outside of Ontario and came to undergrad here and guess what? I was already better prepared that my locally school classmates. I admit that it seems like the transition away from OAC was botched but I would love to hear where the majority of these "lazy" undergrads received their schooling.

I think the unprepardness for post secondary is independent of the OAC/no OAC issue. I know that some of what they're teaching now is just as tough, if not tougher than before. There are other issues involved.

The argument against having another year of high school boils down to "I'm okay Jack."

No one addressed the notion that more education is better than less.

I use the Wikipedia tubes all the time. But i realize i have to take everything with a grain of salt. Any topic that has strongly opposing views will be skewed one way or another as people try to manipulate the content. It's like asking medical questions in the forums, you'll get a decent opinion, but it may kill you, or it may be good advice.
It's a great starting point.

The problem with Wikipedia is that almost anyone has the ability to re-write and edit it, compromising its overall accuracy.

A few months ago, I looked up Cormac McCarthy in Wiki (I had just finished reading The Road, and was curious.) I was surprised to see his entry riddled with misinformation: it listed a date of death (he's still alive), his birthplace as "Mount Olympus, Mars" and his occupation was "Overrated Pompous Jackass", among other things. It was funny as hell, and it remained on the site for another week before someone fixed it, but it goes to show how susceptible the whole Wiki system is.

I agree Gloria. From what I remember of the 'new curriculum' students, another year wouldn't have helped them. They're what happens when parents become bffs and teachers aren't allowed to discipline their students.
Kids these days...

Curious about the "half of her students plagiarized" claim, I googled university plagiarism and the second link, from the University of Alberta, had this statistic "In a 1999 survey of American students conducted by the Center of Academic Integrity at Duke University, 68% of the 2,100 students polled said that they had committed at least one academic offence such as plagiarizing".

Doesn't surprise me really. As the article mentioned, Universities are reluctant to fail students as it reduces their funding, so the code of conduct ain't what it used to be.

My comparison was actually between the inaccuracies of Wikipedia to the inaccuracies of available materials 40 years ago, but hey, you can interpret it as you wish.

I will agree with you that there aren't as many expulsions as there should be - I was one of a small group of students responsible for re-writing Wilfrid Laurier's current code of conduct a few years back, and I know, even from a distance, that it's not being followed. However, I would argue that too many professors are apathetic in this situation as well. I agree with the argument that there are too many students in the system currently that shouldn't be there - but the professors/universities should be doing something about it, rather than releasing students and moaning in the media with broad statements addressing an entire generation's sense of entitlement - because, I'll tell you, as a fairly recent graduate, I knew a LOT of students who didn't feel that way, and worked for everything they got.

Nobody seems to have caught on to the biggest problem with our university system: it's expanding far too fast. You can't dramatically ramp up enrollment year over year and not expect standards and quality to fall. Whereas a few decades ago you actually had to be reasonably intelligent to get into university, now you just need to be able to read. Or not... http://www.globecampus.ca/blogs/parents-view/2009/03/27/university-graduates-who-cant-read/
Perhaps we should rethink whether it is really necessary for one in four Canadians to get a bachelor's degree when many end up working in jobs that don't require it.

A big problem is the incentives for politicians. University has become a middle class rite of passage and policymakers are loath to do anything that might threaten the sense of entitlement of middle class parents everywhere.

The standards set by most post-secondary institutions are a joke. I currently work across several college campuses and I am constantly appalled by the low expectations set by the professors, and accordingly minimal effort put forth by students.

I was able to get by university with minimal effort, but I wasn't made to feel good about it; in particular, maintaining a professional 'studious attitude' was paramount to being involved in any class discussion. But now-a-days, it seems the festering plague of self-entitlement has spread into the student mind-set, and the response has been to let it slide.

What's worse is in 5-10 years this will be our workforce: whiny young people who think that society owes them not only the opportunity to excel, but also owes it to them to make sure they succeed. Phft. Now you see why I got out of teaching.

On university frosh: Grade 13 doesn't exist other provinces. Are kids there less mature? Were there any studies done pre-double cohort on fast trackers and students from outside of Ontario? What about Ontario frosh vs frosh in say, BC or Alberta (pre-double cohort)?

I know plenty of kids who went away to school in Grade 9 (sometimes even younger). I realize that there's a lot of supervision in boarding, because these kids are minors, but it's still LESS supervision than they would at home (more kids to an adult than in a "normal" family situation). Many of these kids turn out fine.

On the bright side, every failure of the "whiny young people" can be directly attributed to the hard-working old people who have failed, as parents and as a society, to properly bring up the children.

I completely understand that it's easier to whine about the lazy young'uns though!

Pension? What's that?

Yeah, it could go both ways and it's usually worse when it goes up the ladder simply because of the effects it has on others.

But wouldn't you agree that the attitude is more deserved by someone who has actually put in four years as opposed to someone trying to get the job for the first time? A senior employee is entitled to more perks, benefits, and slack just because they've put in the time. A twenty-one-year-old applying for the first time isn't.

Last I checked, being an irresponsible fool was not a crime generally deemed worthy of prison time (unfortunately, perhaps).

On an individual scale, yes, you have to own up and live your own life. I am not going to defend a person misusing apostrophes, not the least because it's my own pet peeve. (As an aside, what field are you hiring into?)

On a grand scale, if someone makes comments like "whiny young people [...] think that society owes them", they are asking for and deserve a reply regarding why "young people" are the way they are. This reply will necessarily include the hard-working old people who repeatedly screw over and dumb down the society for personal profit, and the not-so-hard-working old people too stupid or weak-willed to care or do something about it.

Oh I completely agree, it's in the parents' hands. But teachers are supposed to be upholding some sort of standards/criteria, with the support from their institutions... I haven't seen much in terms of setting a bar. In fact, a lot of courses are belled as a way to satiate the students (or perhaps their parents?)

I agree, the previous generation should be setting a good example. Judging by the current state of affairs (war, improper apostrophes, famine, etc.), this is not being done.

No need to apologize; isn't that what the comments are for? In regards to that comment,

Here's my rip: I don't see them as the same thing. In the case of the older, established employee, there was an investment of time and energy put into the company (presumably, otherwise they wouldn't still be there). In that case, although there may not be anything explicit, that employee should expect to be treated a bit better than the entry-level guy. Yes, that is the very definition of entitlement, but severance laws, bonuses, and voluntary wage increases suggest this is a pretty broadly accepted view. I hope your own workplace has something extra to offer you for your loyalty.

This expectation is based on a personal investment of time and effort. In the case of the first-time person, there is no such basis. The sense of entitlement is based on some fantasy either inculcated by school, parents, or both, and carried around blindly by the young adult. This last part is really what I find most troubling; it's either an inability to think critically or a lack of effort to do so. Both options leave me with a bad taste in my mouth for many, many reasons.

Thank heavens for people like you who are both able to articulate their own thoughts *and* use punctuation correctly. Need a job?

I don't think we need to go into corporate bonuses of some execs; that's clearly a false sense of entitlement. Their expectations don't reflect what they've put into the company (i.e. it's now going belly-up because of their mismanagement).

My experiences with teenagers hasn't been that they're whiny. They seem genuinely bewildered that things are not the way they had imagined them. Educators and parents can easily shoulder some of that burden.

But once they grow up, fingers have to stop pointing. If the big executive is playing golf every day and stealing millions from hapless investors, I would hope that a nineteen-year-old would have enough sense to know that that's a bad role model. The law obliges them to, and I feel it's fair for me to do the same.

Isn't that what "deserves" means? They've earned it? Not saying everyone has (hence the debate), but those that have put in the toil and sweat....yeah, they deserve a little breathing room (or thickness of the wallet, whatever).

If we're all equal and forgiven for the sins of our fathers, no one gets raises, no one gets bonuses above any one else, and certainly no one gets vacations based on the amount of time they've worked. No one would have the right to fire you because of incompetence (not your fault), ask you to be at work on time (not your fault), or ask you to stop urinating in the drinking fountain (dad taught you how to do it). How far is it okay to take this?

On the flip side, think of your own situation; are you okay with not getting anything but the minimum allowed under law for your job? In that case, I suspect that the effort of the company to compensate you would match your own enthusiasm -- about zero. Now, all being human, if we flip the tables, the amount of enthusiasm that a company exhibits is directionally proportional to the effort put forth by the applicant. Unless you're suggesting that the applicant's parents or teachers are responsible for a lack in this area, and even if they are, it's ultimately on the interviewee's shoulders to pick up their game. Don't make excuses for them; they do well enough on their own.

Remember, I'm talking about adults. Licensed to drive, drink, and work in government; encouraged to reproduce; etc. Do you want such specimens to decide how your tax money should be spent, or would you rather have someone who maybe got paid more but took responsibility, demonstrated good critical analysis skills (isn't that public school report card criteria?), and why not have a command of their native tongue to boot? In other words, they *earned* their salary?

One thing I'm sure of, these people don't come from a world where they blame all their problems on their upbringing.

I think Khrushchev might agree with you. I, however, do not.

ah, i love education wank.

Patrick: Of course I agree with the concept of appropriate rewards. But you're talking about a sense of entitlement with no apparent investment of time or work to back it up, and then attributing this trait to youth. I'm talking about the same trait but putting it beyond age.

There are people in industries who have their sense of entitlement not because they've worked hard for a long time, but because they've *been there* for a long time, scraping by on the minimal workload, to the point where they owe their employment to the company and the company owes them nothing. How is this factor of age -- older rather than younger -- a virtue?

"Coasting" is a dirty word. Giving you an easier time when you trip up, granting perks, yes -- my god, of course. My father's worked for the same employer for almost thirty years, and I'd be outraged if they didn't treat him with respect. But that doesn't mean he can put up his feet, because his sustained energy and dedication is his respect to the company.

I don't think we're arguing about the same thing, anyway.