Wwhat wrote: "I'm sorry to hear I overestimated my fellowman mr sas, seems dumb is the average universities cater to then, excuse me for my optimism and view that instituted of higher learning should adhere to some standards. This does explain things like the state of NASA though."
Here's a thought. Based upon the usage, grammar and spelling one might not hold a high opinion of Wwhat. This is not to say Wwhat is stupid; however, there is some degree of ambiguity regarding who exactly gets kicked out of school...hmm.
Here's another. NASA is broken precisely because its focus has shifted away from science toward political point-making. Many universities have fallen into the same trap. However, universities are spared having the VPOTUS sitting in the drivers seat! I personally know numerous NASA scientists and engineers--they are ALL top notch people--there are no average thinkers among the techies at NASA. However, there are also very few truly charismatic leaders. That's traditionally been a vacuum regretably filled by whatever pols are blowing in the wind. Some have a brain or at least a willingness to listen, learn, ask questions and build good teams. Others sit around saying "C'mon, launch already!", which as we've seen leads to tragedy. What NASA really needs is a core of proven, responsible, charismatic and visionary science leaders who are pretty much afforded the latitude and trust to make it great again. My sense is that the retired astronauts would be a good recruitment pool. Some type of technical doctorate should be required to lead NASA--at least an M.D.. Maybe anyone who has served in a popularly elected (municipal through federal) or senior (appointed state & federal) positions should be disqualified from the top job to help avoid cronyism. Not that it won't occur. Like all socialism, perpetually funded government programs always go south. The earliest symptom is middle and upper management slowly destroying them from within. Next political forces unfound them from their initial mandates (however visionary). Finally an economy of horse-trading and favors attacks the at the roots--the workers and support staff--bleeding once robust organizations that somehow consume ever increasing levels of capital.
Knowing this is no solution. Similarly, modeling the ideal freshman at Princeton, Stanford, or MIT is no justification for eliminating all the others (although such models ease the job of admissions officers). Almost universal components of the aforementioned model are literacy and communication skills. This will certainly be changing--students do increasingly more with only spoken or only written products and using content that is only read or heard. This trend moves sharply away from the standard of previous centuries which demanded a breadth of skills in every cumminications mode. Today it is conceivable for a student to do better than 90% of their learning in front of a computer. Therein lies the problem. When students lack diverse functional experiences, how can we expect them to solve complex real-world problems. The single most frightening prospect of that which I see is a technological crash following the depletion of critical natural resources.
So, are the universities catering to the average--thankfully no. We are still attracting a select populous. However, how this group dinstinguishes themselves may be difficult for society to understand. No longer are they building rockets or crystal radios. Todays brightest kids are solving advanced math, doing molecular biology research, and considering environmental issues from novel perspectives. Their work is not as flashy as it was 50 years ago. But it's not just valid, it no less valuable, and potentially more important. In 100 years when we look back at the good, the bad and the ugly, the whole space program might not be considered in the first category. On the other hand, fields like microbiology, epidemiology, atmospheric science and alternative energy research may be viewed as the crown jewels of our time.
There's more to PC games than computer towers and input devices... Enter the CM Storm Sirus, the outfit's first foray into the world of gaming headsets.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Wwhat wrote: "I'm sorry to hear I overestimated my fellowman mr sas, seems dumb is the average universities cater to then, excuse me for my optimism and view that instituted of higher learning should adhere to some standards. This does explain things like the state of NASA though."
Here's a thought. Based upon the usage, grammar and spelling one might not hold a high opinion of Wwhat. This is not to say Wwhat is stupid; however, there is some degree of ambiguity regarding who exactly gets kicked out of school...hmm.
Here's another. NASA is broken precisely because its focus has shifted away from science toward political point-making. Many universities have fallen into the same trap. However, universities are spared having the VPOTUS sitting in the drivers seat! I personally know numerous NASA scientists and engineers--they are ALL top notch people--there are no average thinkers among the techies at NASA. However, there are also very few truly charismatic leaders. That's traditionally been a vacuum regretably filled by whatever pols are blowing in the wind. Some have a brain or at least a willingness to listen, learn, ask questions and build good teams. Others sit around saying "C'mon, launch already!", which as we've seen leads to tragedy. What NASA really needs is a core of proven, responsible, charismatic and visionary science leaders who are pretty much afforded the latitude and trust to make it great again. My sense is that the retired astronauts would be a good recruitment pool. Some type of technical doctorate should be required to lead NASA--at least an M.D.. Maybe anyone who has served in a popularly elected (municipal through federal) or senior (appointed state & federal) positions should be disqualified from the top job to help avoid cronyism. Not that it won't occur. Like all socialism, perpetually funded government programs always go south. The earliest symptom is middle and upper management slowly destroying them from within. Next political forces unfound them from their initial mandates (however visionary). Finally an economy of horse-trading and favors attacks the at the roots--the workers and support staff--bleeding once robust organizations that somehow consume ever increasing levels of capital.
Knowing this is no solution. Similarly, modeling the ideal freshman at Princeton, Stanford, or MIT is no justification for eliminating all the others (although such models ease the job of admissions officers). Almost universal components of the aforementioned model are literacy and communication skills. This will certainly be changing--students do increasingly more with only spoken or only written products and using content that is only read or heard. This trend moves sharply away from the standard of previous centuries which demanded a breadth of skills in every cumminications mode. Today it is conceivable for a student to do better than 90% of their learning in front of a computer. Therein lies the problem. When students lack diverse functional experiences, how can we expect them to solve complex real-world problems. The single most frightening prospect of that which I see is a technological crash following the depletion of critical natural resources.
So, are the universities catering to the average--thankfully no. We are still attracting a select populous. However, how this group dinstinguishes themselves may be difficult for society to understand. No longer are they building rockets or crystal radios. Todays brightest kids are solving advanced math, doing molecular biology research, and considering environmental issues from novel perspectives. Their work is not as flashy as it was 50 years ago. But it's not just valid, it no less valuable, and potentially more important. In 100 years when we look back at the good, the bad and the ugly, the whole space program might not be considered in the first category. On the other hand, fields like microbiology, epidemiology, atmospheric science and alternative energy research may be viewed as the crown jewels of our time.