Do you disagree? I understand the scolding and you may consider it irrelevant to answer my question but I am curious about the intentions of those who push back in this way.
> Do you disagree? I understand the scolding and you may consider it irrelevant to answer my question but I am curious about the intentions of those who push back in this way.
Meta-question on the emphasis above: are you (uoaei) and bell-cot the same user?
It's probably coming from frustration with non-contributive commentary, of which the topmost comment unquestionably qualifies.
It's in poor form to do citizen-policing pretty much anywhere let alone an internet forum, but I won't begrudge the user their frustrations over something that's undeniably a problem.
The comment you've replied is not wrong. The submission shows real world knowledge vs a lot of folks coming out today without any practical knowledge, just theoretical. This is what OP talked about.
Compared to what specifically? It helps to find relevant, comparable examples of electives in major areas of economic impact and demonstrating how these modern electives fail to do what you described.
> vs a lot of folks coming out today without any practical knowledge, just theoretical.
This isn't a direct comparison. But if we were to make this comparison more direct (e.g "more people were prepared in 1907 for application of practical knowledge than today), it's also in need of substance. How much is "a lot"? What is practical knowledge, and how can you be sure that the knowledge taught isn't practical?
From the modern curricula linked elsewhere in the thread, it looks like quite a few courses are directly relevant to operationalization in their domains.
