Do you agree?

SephStorm

I found this message on a list, talking about ITT's ISS degree. I am interested in knowing if you all agree that subject matter outside of the degree scope is truly worthwhile.

SecurityFocus BASICS: Re: ITT a good ISS school to attend?

"Curtis,
I think it's great that you already have a career in mind. And ITT may
be a good start. But I would recommend getting a well rounded
education. I am not familiar enough with ITT to critique their
programs. I can only go on what I've heard. And I've heard it is more
like a vocational school for IT.


I believe it is more important to learn why than how. If ITT programs
focus on how to accomplish specific tasks, that is extremely perishable
knowledge. If you study things like english, history, math, and ethics
you will gain knowledge that should last you a lifetime. I'm not saying
you should major in english, but that non-technical subjects should not
be neglected. Later in your career you will garner as much respect for
how well you present yourself as how much you know about IT.


If you had gone to ITT fifteen years ago and majored in Novell
Administration, what would your career prospects look like today? IT is
ever changing and I believe the key is to be versatile.

I think a better combination would be an IT degree from a traditional
school with security certs afterwards."

Personally, I am a fan of concentrations in degree's. I think this is one of the reasons college grads are having such a hard time, and will continue to have a hard time getting employed in the future. They may know some theory, and know the why, but they haven't DONE it, they don't know HOW to do it.

The poster makes a good point, that a degree in for instance programming or novell, can certainly hold you back when looking to change career path's or when a technology is no longer supported. However I would counter that it simply requires more work. You get a Microsoft cert to show that you know that as well, or you get a certificate in hardware repair, or even a masters in a different concentration.

However, that is not really the point, I think these advanced math, english, history courses are unnecessary. You take 12 years of english and math and history, I don't see why a IT professional needs to know calculus, or whatever else they teach in college courses these days. Can they be useful? Yes, but I don't think it should be required learning.

Mike-Mike

SephStorm wrote: »

Personally, I am a fan of concentrations in degree's. I think this is one of the reasons college grads are having such a hard time, and will continue to have a hard time getting employed in the future.

I agree with this part for sure. I think if someone has a degree in Accounting or to be a Teacher they are fine in the job market, but people with blanket titles like Business or Communications are having problems... at least in my circle of friends that seems to be the case.

Spykedjadedragon

I agree to an extent. I currently don't have a college degree but I'm going back to school next year to pursue one. If you have the time, I think the best thing to do would be to major in something IT/computer related and minor in something else like business.

I work a full time IT job that I love and I want to gain a bachelors so that I don't hit a road block on salary or job prospects down the road. If I could, I would definitely major in something relative to IT and minor in something broad, but I know I won't have the time.

sidsanders

SephStorm wrote: »

However, that is not really the point, I think these advanced math, english, history courses are unnecessary. You take 12 years of english and math and history, I don't see why a IT professional needs to know calculus, or whatever else they teach in college courses these days. Can they be useful? Yes, but I don't think it should be required learning.

if you were to go for a comp sci degree, there is little way to avoid advanced math. i can say that 1 of the advanced eng classes covered professional writing -- that does apply in the tech world.

i would have liked to have skipped on a lot of the rest as you note though. art history, etc...

brianeaglesfan

I personally went with a BSBA with a focus in CIS. Best of both worlds, you get the business core body of knowledge along with an emphasis in IT related courses. Seems like that or even a CS degree would give you more flexibility than a straight BS in a technology-focused major.

SephStorm

mainly if you have an interest in business I would think. Although I understand companies want IT Pro's who understand the buisness applications of IT, I personally have little to no interest in business. However, I think it's a great option, I think those should be optional classes in a degree programs, but the first mission should be attaining knowledge of the degree subject.

veritas_libertas

SephStorm wrote: »

mainly if you have an interest in business I would think. Although I understand companies want IT Pro's who understand the buisness applications of IT, I personally have little to no interest in business. However, I think it's a great option, I think those should be optional classes in a degree programs, but the first mission should be attaining knowledge of the degree subject.

Just as a reminder SephStorm, IT Security means lots of document writing. IT Auditing, and Pentesting means MUCH more documenting. At least that is what PaulBoz and Dynamik have told me

eansdad

Math = Problem solving, English = Proper Documentation, History = I don't know, but there is always a life lesson in history. Point is stuff that doesn't seem important at the time may actually be in the future. I wish I'd of learned this 20 years ago instead of saying the same thing "When am I ever going to use this".

Not saying that ITT Tech and DeVry (and other for profit colleges) are bad or churn out bad people. I have meet a few ITT Tech people who aren't worth the paper their degree is on but I do know of 1 DeVry guy who is awesome at everything he does. It is more of what that person puts into their education. I know he tinkers with things day and night, the others only got into IT for the money.

Like my grandpa said "A well rounded education will always open doors". A person who put the time in to learn the course work instead of just pass will always have the leg up. Doesn't matter what school they went to.

SephStorm

I understand the concept, that is the intent of these classes, I just think it is not serving those purposes. How many college grads sit behind a desk for 20 years not solving any problem more difficult than how not to get canned? Or truly use any english skills that weren't learned in high school(maybe personnel specialists, secrataries and executives)

History does indeed have lessons to teach us, but as I said before, if you haven't learned them in 12 years, you are unlikely to learn them in another 4.

earweed

If you're so against having to take more English and humanities for a BS degree and think you've learned all you need from your elementary-high school studies then just try to CLEP all the non-IT classes. It's actually, in my opinion, good to have exposure to other facets while getting your education.
To say that nothing else is important and you should go to a school that doesn't require you to get a rounded education is very closed minded. Every IT Pro needs some business education as security is all about the business. Without the business there would be no IT.
When doing any security analysis the first thing to be considered is the business needs.

As for things such as Art history and such some schools, like WGU, don't require them. They do require some core humanities (history, ethics) which are important. They also require science and college level algebra.

Biznatch

SephStorm wrote: »

However, that is not really the point, I think these advanced math, english, history courses are unnecessary. You take 12 years of english and math and history, I don't see why a IT professional needs to know calculus, or whatever else they teach in college courses these days. Can they be useful? Yes, but I don't think it should be required learning.

LOL I wish my compsci degree only stopped at calculus... Compared to the higher math classes required, calculus I and II were easy. But compsci is more focused on programming, which can use the advanced math.

tbgree00

I think that a well rounded education is very helpful in a person's daily life. Sure I don't ever run an econometric regression on an IP address but having a non-IT Liberal Arts degree has opened a lot of doors and helps me communicate with clients and supervisors.

I have a degree in Economics took a lot of ethics, history, language, math, and philosophy classes. It all helps me come at a problem from a different perspective. It also creates a baseline of familiarity with a lot of subjects for chatting about while waiting for scans to finish. The writing classes definitely help my documentation. I have been praised many times on that.

I think having a narrow focus makes you a narrow person. Strategies used in the War of 1812 doesn't seem like it will have much impact on your life as a systems admin until you interview with someone obsessed with it. It happened with my best client. I didn't know a ton but could hum a few bars and now I have a steady flow of side income.

forkvoid

SephStorm wrote: »

However, that is not really the point, I think these advanced math, english, history courses are unnecessary. You take 12 years of english and math and history, I don't see why a IT professional needs to know calculus, or whatever else they teach in college courses these days. Can they be useful? Yes, but I don't think it should be required learning.

Why? So you're a more interesting person.

A man who knows everything there is to know about network administration is cool to us--and utterly boring to the rest of the world. If you can't have a beer with him and discuss, say, politics, history, or a good book(non IT) you've read lately, he's not going to be someone you hang out with all that often.

A well-rounded education makes you a well-rounded person, and infinitely more interesting to talk to. Ever spent time a tenured professor of 30 years, who is renowned for for being the best there ever was at Quilt Patterns during the Reign of Alexander the Great or some other equally specialized area? They get very, very boring after a while.

Specialization is great--but don't neglect everything else the world has to offer in exchange.

colemic

eansdad wrote: »

Math = Problem solving, English = Proper Documentation, History = I don't know, but there is always a life lesson in history.

Ooh, I know the answer to that! It's not reciting facts, that's just memorization. History is not knowing what happened in the Reformation in Scotland, for example - it's being able to interpret and analyze those events and apply them in context to understand their effects.

Just in case you were wondering.

eansdad

colemic wrote: »

Ooh, I know the answer to that! It's not reciting facts, that's just memorization. History is not knowing what happened in the Reformation in Scotland, for example - it's being able to interpret and analyze those events and apply them in context to understand their effects.

Just in case you were wondering.

Nice explanation, thanks...

Learning different subjects helps you to understand yourself and others. Case in point is myself...I HATE English...Was once asked in class "What did Shakespeare mean when he wrote blah blah blah (yeah I forgot it)?" My response was "Will this pay my bills." I told her that analyzing dead writers and pulling meaning from everything they wrote is garbage and made me wonder if in 100 years people will be analyzing Gene Roddenberry/Star Trek, George Lucus/Star Wars, R.K. Rowling/Harry Potter and Steven King. Apparently that was the wrong answer but it made me realize my mode of thinking so something came from it.

Slowhand

SephStorm wrote: »

History does indeed have lessons to teach us, but as I said before, if you haven't learned them in 12 years, you are unlikely to learn them in another 4.

There's a big difference in the quality of the education you get in those four years, as opposed to what was in those first twelve. Not to mention, college is not mandatory, meaning that you go there to learn under your own volition and you have a big incentive to do well. Everyone has to go to high school, not everyone chooses to do well there and simply want to get out. Many high schools cater to this desire, either by financial necessity or by policy, and kick a lot of people out to the streets with diplomas that shouldn't have them.

On the subjects of math and English, I can only repeat what other posters have said: math teaches you to be analytical and solve problems, and I can't tell you how many times I've seen working IT professionals send out emails that look like they were written by a fourth-grader.

As for why you should take classes that you deem as useless, there's a very good reason. For most people, college isn't just about learning specific skills to apply towards your job, (like a cert, for example,) it's also a fully-rounded out learning experience that also constitutes one of the first and biggest projects people undertake in their adult lives. It's the reason why people with any ol' Bachelor's degree will get picked over people without any degree at all for a job, it's the same reason why people with a Master's or PhD will likely be your boss if you have an Associate's or Bachelor's degree. Employers like to see that you finish what you start, despite the 'boring and useless parts', and that is often times what a college degree represents.

Chris:/*

You have to remember that a Bachelors Degree's purpose is to make you a well rounded and educated individual not so much to train you for a specific job. In your last two years you are only then getting to your major.

The Math Classes are used to prepare you for writing logical choices, algorithms and decision engines (This is especially important in science and engineer degrees).
The English Classes are used to prepare you to write professionally. Just how much work would improve if people actually listened in these classes.
History teaches cause and effect for decisions and the penance for those decisions. It also teaches people how societies react which can be applied to psychology and sociology classes. This prepares you to become a better manager and leader.

Sorry Slowhand should have read the whole post, you said the same thing first.

SephStorm

Rather than attempting to argue, allow me to propose a hypothetical situation that may help me to understand your thoughts on this issue.

Say you are hiring for a SYSAdmin position at your company, and you have narrowed it down to 2 individuals. Both have no prior industry experience, both have BS degrees and the same industry certifications, and assume all other things are equal. One has a BS from a traditional accredited university (Lets say his name is Rob) The other individual (Bob) has a degree from an accredited university known for having a hands on degree program. During the four year program, a student learns not only from the book, but with real world technology. Has learned help desk procedures, Day to day management of a network including Windows Server, Linux and Unix servers, a mix of Os's. Patch management, configured voip systems, implemented and enforced security policies, performed backups, ect. Managed new "workers" (new students), and so on in so forth.

Now I dare say that the second individual is more valuable. He probably knows the technology you are using, if not, he has shown the versitility to learn to use multiple ones, he can survive in a simulated business environment, where he wears a suit, attends meetings, has deadlines and sometimes has to work overtime. Compare this to the guy who for all you know, partied at night, crammed for 4 years and yeah, he knows a little about a lot, but in reality, which one is more prepared to step into your business and is almost ready to get to work.

@ chris, I think you said it better, no offense. I simply think that instead of learning those things by proxy, just learn them. Teach your student how to write a professional report, not a 5000 word essay on... whatever they teach in those classes. Instead of teaching traditional math, teach logical reasoning, put them in a situation where they have to think outside the box. Put them in a position where they have to make an ethical decision, and play out the repercussions.

Slowhand

SephStorm wrote: »

Rather than attempting to argue, allow me to propose a hypothetical situation that may help me to understand your thoughts on this issue.

Say you are hiring for a SYSAdmin position at your company, and you have narrowed it down to 2 individuals. Both have no prior industry experience, both have BS degrees and the same industry certifications, and assume all other things are equal. One has a BS from a traditional accredited university (Lets say his name is Rob) The other individual (Bob) has a degree from an accredited university known for having a hands on degree program. During the four year program, a student learns not only from the book, but with real world technology. Has learned help desk procedures, Day to day management of a network including Windows Server, Linux and Unix servers, a mix of Os's. Patch management, configured voip systems, implemented and enforced security policies, performed backups, ect. Managed new "workers" (new students), and so on in so forth.

Now I dare say that the second individual is more valuable. He probably knows the technology you are using, if not, he has shown the versitility to learn to use multiple ones, he can survive in a simulated business environment, where he wears a suit, attends meetings, has deadlines and sometimes has to work overtime. Compare this to the guy who for all you know, partied at night, crammed for 4 years and yeah, he knows a little about a lot, but in reality, which one is more prepared to step into your business and is almost ready to get to work.

The problem here is that you're making a straw man argument with a very specific set of circumstances. In this case, if Bob was studious and hard-working, while Rob went to a party-school and barely made it through, you're correct. Still, that doesn't mean that, just because this particular case can be true, there aren't other cases that are very different.

I suppose I could make the same argument: What if Bob went to WGU, for example, and coasted through his Network Management degree program, learning really only how to pass his class exams and cert tests. Basically, taking the path of least resistance towards a degree that has the same name as the job he wants. He has the degree, he has the credentials, but he just crammed through the books and has no real practical knowledge.

Meanwhile, Rob went to MIT and took a degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, with a focus on computer engineering. He was co-enrolled at Harvard for his general education units, (which is not unheard of,) and took Business 101, Political Science 101, Interpersonal Communication, English 1A & 1B, etc. there, while doing his technical/mathematics/science courses at MIT. Both of these schools are world-famous for their difficult and intensive programs, many people who simply party and cram wash out within a year. Rob, of course, took his EECS Bachelor's degree with honors, a feat not possible unless you're willing to work to your limit and "think outside the box" in just about everything you do.

So, here's Bob and Rob, five years after graduation, sitting in front of you with identical certs and and practically identical work-experience. Who would you hire? Who do you think has put in the work to really learn their stuff, and which one either crammed or dumped his way through the exams? The problem is obvious: this is a very, very special case that assumes a lot about both Bob and Rob. In your case, Bob was the rockstar and Rob was a slacker; in my case, Bob did the bare-minimum and Rob worked his way through the Ivy Leagues. You can't make a general statement based on a specific example.

SephStorm wrote: »

Instead of teaching traditional math, teach logical reasoning, put them in a situation where they have to think outside the box. Put them in a position where they have to make an ethical decision, and play out the repercussions.

I'm looking at this and I can't help but think this is a little bit like saying, "instead of learning how Windows Server works as an OS, just teach a sysadmin how to administrate AD." How can you learn a specific subset of a skill without learning the foundations of the skill first? Learning to write a business or technical report requires that you know how to write, in general, first. English 1A and 1B aren't high-level classes, they're basic reading & composition courses. As for logical reasoning, you can indeed learn logic without math, but there's a reason the advanced logic courses in any university's philosophy department requires a college-level background in math - generally, at least Calc I - the two subjects are invariably linked and have a lot in common. . . particularly, how you reason and reach conclusions.

SephStorm wrote: »

@ chris, I think you said it better, no offense. I simply think that instead of learning those things by proxy, just learn them. Teach your student how to write a professional report, not a 5000 word essay on... whatever they teach in those classes.

They teach things like learning to recognize logical fallacies such as straw man arguments and false dilemmas, along with the understanding of how to recognize so-called weasel words like "thinking outside the box", none of which make a compelling argument for a point but rather attempt to invalidate the counterpoint. (I learned that in English 1B, incidentally. )

The real heart of this matter, beyond the specifics of the argument, is that you are indeed right about the fact that focused degree programs and vocational tracks are better for some people than a traditional journey through academia. Making an argument that the former is better than the latter by using dubious circumstances not only does little to prove your point, it can also distract you from the fact that there are pros and cons to each path. As you said, a traditional academic path doesn't necessarily teach you directly-applicable 'real-world' skills that you need for your job. Then again, a more vocational path might not give you the same foundations of general knowledge that you can build on to learn the more specific skills.

If you feel that a focused degree is more suited to your tastes and interests, that's definitely what you should do. You probably wouldn't be happy studying at a traditional school if you feel as strongly as you do about taking those general education classes. Just understand that those pros and cons I mentioned are part of the investment you make in your education, just as there are pros and cons to my decision to go to UC Berkeley, for example. (I don't even want to think about what tuition will cost next year, when I transfer. )

SephStorm

i like your final analysis there, both have pro's and cons.

I apolligize for any weasal words, I can assure you, there was no weaseling intended, I wrote everything from the heart, though I had to rush to do so.

I'm looking at this and I can't help but think this is a little bit like saying, "instead of learning how Windows Server works as an OS, just teach a sysadmin how to administrate AD." How can you learn a specific subset of a skill without learning the foundations of the skill first? Learning to write a business or technical report requires that you know how to write, in general, first. English 1A and 1B aren't high-level classes, they're basic reading & composition courses. As for logical reasoning, you can indeed learn logic without math, but there's a reason the advanced logic courses in any university's philosophy department requires a college-level background in math - generally, at least Calc I - the two subjects are invariably linked and have a lot in common. . . particularly, how you reason and reach conclusions.

Those basic english skills are taught in elementary, middle and high school. I never said that there shouldn't be an entrance exam If someone has an issue, where he doesn't have the skills necessary to do a part of the job, then just as in a normal college, you take additional courses, or get a tutor.

Indeed, I wish I could take a alternate educational path, but it seems as though at least today, that is not possible, or would be harmful to my career intentions. Maybe, hopefully, the next generation won't feel such pressures.

earweed

@Seph- While you may think an alternative to a traditional education is all you can do then you are both right and wrong. I don't particularly like the fact that slowhand used WGU as the hypothetical school in his argument as WGU does have you take all of the general education classes and even a course in collegiate level reasoning and problem solving which is the type of class which will help to teach you to write out a really good argument on a subject as slowhand just did.
While some online schools may be degree mills I feel that what I have done at WGU has actually helped me. I have actually learned a lot but in a non-traditional school such as WGU you only get out what you put in. If you only do enough to pass each test or enough work to get a passing mark on a paper you write then you are cheating yourself. Each course I've taken has a Course of Study which, if followed, will lead you down a path of actually learning the subject matter. If you choose the easy path and just work to pass the exam or get a passing score on the paper then you are not going to be learning.
The non-IT classes you take at the college level are not there to teach you what you have already learned or as a review. They are there to teach you to go beyond where you would have gone with just the high school level of knowledge.

Slowhand

SephStorm wrote: »

Those basic english skills are taught in elementary, middle and high school.

"Basic" is a relative term. In high school, I got A's for turning in my homework, correct or not. In college, I get A's for applying what I learn and working my butt off to pass exams.

And your point is fair enough, earweed. I wanted to use WGU as an example of a reputable school to compare with the ivory tower that is MIT, it was a mistake to paint it as a papermill. The intention was to show that anyone, regardless of the school, can be a slacker.

earweed

True enough that a slacker could make it through WGU but a slacker can also make it through a lot of B&M's also.

Slowhand

earweed wrote: »

True enough that a slacker could make it through WGU but a slacker can also make it through a lot of B&M's also.

Indeed. I know several, in fact. We call them "humanities majors".

veritas_libertas

Slowhand wrote: »

Indeed. I know several, in fact. We call them "humanities majors".

Oh, harsh!

Turgon

I have an honours degree in History. Hurrah!

earweed

I doubt anyone here would call you a slacker though.

Turgon

earweed wrote: »

I doubt anyone here would call you a slacker though.

Neither should they. Getting a top degree in History isn't easy.

Slowhand

Turgon wrote: »

Neither should they. Getting a top degree in History isn't easy.

Nope, it isn't. A guy I've known for over 15 years just graduated from Berkeley with a degree in English, with highest honors. The guy is pretty much like a brother to me, and he worked so hard he said that even the grad-students thought he was overdoing it. He's got an open door to Harvard for his grad-studies. Still, since we're in such opposite departments, it only feels right to tease him every now and then.