Is university just white collar job training?

[Churo1]

So, we all know colleges in Canada (also known to as 'trade schools') are designed to put students into blue collar jobs (electricians, plumbers, carpenters, etc.). They are advertised this way and this has become commonly accepted knowledge amongst all Canadians. Universities however are advertised as "learning institutions", supposedly not having job-readiness in mind. However looking at many programs (business,economics,engineering,law school, med school, etc.) these are basically training students for white collar office worker jobs. Even students going into programs such as philosophy often ask the question "what job can I get when I graduate..." expecting that their degree will lead to a career. So the question is: Is university simply white collar job training in this day and age?

[pace]

in this day and age? when has it ever been any different?

[Quiggie]

No. I took comp-sci and it was full of theory and concepts that resemble nothing I've seen in the workplace. However, due to me knowing these things they taught me, I am able to learn things I need in the workplace. For example, due to knowing complexity theory and language/grammar theory, I am able to teach myself for example C#. Whereas in a college, they would just teach someone C# directly.

[Churo1]

They offer programming in trade school now? Must be some smart wood workers.

[krozet]

in this day and age? when has it ever been any different?

+1

A good friend of mine is a professor at UWO, she says that it depends on the university... I believe her favorite phrase is "If you can walk, you can go to Brock" So it depends on the school. :D

[unowned]

universities prepare you for several different avenues to pursue...no one is stopping any of the students from going on to do a masters or a PhD and therefore further the discovery of knowledge in different fields. Its up to the students to make the choice of whether they want to go pursue a career as a white collar worker/blue collar whatever...The fact is that most white collar jobs either require or prefer someone with a university background.

[needinformation]

So, we all know colleges in Canada (also known to as 'trade schools') are designed to put students into blue collar jobs (electricians, plumbers, carpenters, etc.). They are advertised this way and this has become commonly accepted knowledge amongst all Canadians. Universities however are advertised as "learning institutions", supposedly not having job-readiness in mind. However looking at many programs (business,economics,engineering,law school, med school, etc.) these are basically training students for white collar office worker jobs. Even students going into programs such as philosophy often ask the question "what job can I get when I graduate..." expecting that their degree will lead to a career. So the question is: Is university simply white collar job training in this day and age?

I think the question is a bit silly as well. Universities have ALWAYS been known as white collar traning grounds, in previous years even more so than now modern times. However I can adress your question in this manner....


Colleges can also be white collar training grounds as well, nowdays there are different programs that are being tought in different colleges that gear individuals for office jobs in which a high degree of ethical soundness (at least superficially is expected) .... Of course you have people that go for such things like carpentry etc etc.
University for the most part is very theoretical but it is more deep in terms of the stuff you learn, thus it can be argued that it is better for terms of long term knowledge and creating leaders. However nowdays you can take a lot of office related traning and administrative training in college and end up at a white collar office, not necesseraly meaning that you will be the top white collar person.

These questions are very general. Everything is in terms of perspective of what you are going to do and the job that you will go into. University can also be very technical, there are extremely hard programs like engineering at U of Waterloo that are extremely technical and also theoretical.
Overall I would say that for knowledge, leadership, critical thinking and depth of thinking university is more complete. Even a ****** university will train you to think critically and question things much more so than regular colleges. Community colleges teach you to learn things, perform tasks technically and they teach you a little bit of theory as well. But more often than not thinking deeply, as in like questioning issues and approaching things with a more critical approach is not really something that is even welcomed and fommented by a lot of the students. Community colleges fomment and reflect directly an everyday thinking and attitude that requires practicality, speed over real quality and often bypasses real issues that should be explored a bit further (academic and social issue) all in the name of speed. There is nothing wrong with speed and efficiency, the problem is that there should be a balance of both. Overall community colleges usually have a lot of good stuff to offer, they are good stepping stone to learning but universities (even a ****** one like nipissing or york) offer and encourage more complete way of thinking. Technical thinking, speed (at your pace), critical thinking, theory and efficiency.

[Churo1]

Colleges can also be white collar training grounds as well, nowdays there are different programs that are being tought in different colleges that gear individuals for office jobs in which a high degree of ethical soundness (at least superficially is expected) .... Of course you have people that go for such things like carpentry etc etc.
University for the most part is very theoretical but it is more deep in terms of the stuff you learn, thus it can be argued that it is better for terms of long term knowledge and creating leaders. However nowdays you can take a lot of office related traning and administrative training in college and end up at a white collar office, not necesseraly meaning that you will be the top white collar person.

These questions are very general. Everything is in terms of perspective of what you are going to do and the job that you will go into. University can also be very technical, there are extremely hard programs like engineering at U of Waterloo that are extremely technical and also theoretical.
Overall I would say that for knowledge, leadership, critical thinking and depth of thinking university is more complete. Even a ****** university will train you to think critically and question things much more so than regular colleges. Community colleges teach you to learn things, perform tasks technically and they teach you a little bit of theory as well. But more often than not thinking deeply, as in like questioning issues and approaching things with a more critical approach is not really something that is even welcomed and fommented by a lot of the students. Community colleges fomment and reflect directly an everyday thinking and attitude that requires practicality, speed over real quality and often bypasses real issues that should be explored a bit further (academic and social issue) all in the name of speed. There is nothing wrong with speed and efficiency, the problem is that there should be a balance of both. Overall community colleges usually have a lot of good stuff to offer, they are good stepping stone to learning but universities (even a ****** one like nipissing or york) offer and encourage more complete way of thinking. Technical thinking, speed (at your pace), critical thinking, theory and efficiency.

"But college is producing blue-collar workers. An electrical can not be a white collar worker, like a tiger can not lose its stripes...."
-Confucious

[needinformation]

"But college is producing blue-collar workers. An electrical can not be a white collar worker, like a tiger can not lose its stripes...."
-Confucious


You also have people that do computer engineering and let's not even get that technical, what about CGA traning, those students that want to be accountans, some of them start off in college.

For the most part they do produce blue collar workers but they also produce white collar workers as well.

[Churo1]

That's it. I've had enough of you people treating my thread like it's a public toilet...pissing and shitting all over it.

The truth is: people who go into university do not know how to think. They are taught how to think by very dedicated professors. These professors are similar to the ancient wisemen, single-handedly turning young non-thinkers into thinkers.

Colleges you are just taught how to do a repetitive task while the professor horsewhips you (think ancient Egyptian-like), Churns out woodworkers and/or plumbers.

END OF DISCUSSION.

[vavaju]

No. I took comp-sci and it was full of theory and concepts that resemble nothing I've seen in the workplace. However, due to me knowing these things they taught me, I am able to learn things I need in the workplace. For example, due to knowing complexity theory and language/grammar theory, I am able to teach myself for example C#. Whereas in a college, they would just teach someone C# directly.

Complexity theory and language/grammar theory enabled you to teach yourself C#?

:lol:

o...k...

[Churo1]

Well Vajaju, one could say university is similar to jedi training...think of it like this and perhaps you won't have such consternation over learning C# after said mental powers were developed.

[Jay Hova]

No, not really. I don't see how a BA in Sociology prepares you for white collar training.

For Engineering, Accounting, CS and other professional programs (Law, MBA, Med, etc) there is a component devoted to professional practice - e.g patient interaction, etc. So, in a way, yes...but not for programs like History or Poli Sci.

And yeah there is Co-Op...

[Churo1]

no, not really. I don't see how a ba in sociology prepares you for white collar training.

For engineering, accounting, cs and other professional programs (law, mba, med, etc) there is a component devoted to professional practice - e.g patient interaction, etc. So, in a way, yes...but not for programs like history or poli sci.

And yeah there is co-op...

you missed the whole point of the thread. Also computer science is not a professional program. Thank you.

[mike24]

you missed the whole point of the thread. Also computer science is not a professional program. Thank you.

Most computer science programs at established universities are recognized as professional software engineering degrees.

After all, software engineering is just a watered down version of computer science.

[Churo1]

I would like to retract my previous comment. The poster is obviously referring to a bachelor of counter-strike which is of course a professional program. Sorry for any inconvenience.

[Churo1]

Most computer science programs at established universities are recognized as professional software engineering degrees.

After all, software engineering is just a watered down version of computer science.

WTF? So a computer science graduate will get the iron ring and be eligible to become a professional engineer? Typical high school teacher comment.

[vavaju]

Most computer science programs at established universities are recognized as professional software engineering degrees.

After all, software engineering is just a watered down version of computer science.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but uh... um... how do I put this... uh.. NO.

..but in my dark and lonely friday nights I do like to take out my pink tie and put it on my pinky finger.

[nalababe]

The so called white collar training ground would represent less than half of many universities. Most Arts and Sciences programs are not "training" for a specific career...

[mike24]

WTF? So a computer science graduate will get the iron ring and be eligible to become a professional engineer? Typical high school teacher comment.

An iron ring doesn't guarantee a P.Eng. It just makes very shallow people feel more established.

[Churo1]

The so called white collar training ground would represent less than half of many universities. Most Arts and Sciences programs are not "training" for a specific career...

Another person who just reads the title and then posts. PLEASE AT LEAST READ THE FIRST ENTRY IN THE THREAD BEFORE POSTING A RESPONSE. THANK YOU.

[Churo1]

An iron ring doesn't guarantee a P.Eng. It just makes very shallow people feel more established.

No one said it did. That would be a damn lie similar to your previous post.

[mike24]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but uh... um... how do I put this... uh.. NO.

..but in my dark and lonely friday nights I do like to take out my pink tie and put it on my pinky finger.

It's better to go out with friends on a Friday night.

[mike24]

No one said it did. That would be a damn lie similar to your previous post.

Look at the UWO academic calendar for example:

The Honors Specialization in Computer Science leads to a Computer Science degree that is accredited by the Computer Science Accreditation Council, the academic arm of the Canadian Information Processing Society. This specialization, in combination with the department's Minor in Software Engineering, leads to degree that is accredited by CSAC as a Software Engineering degree.

http://www.westerncalendar.uwo.ca/2009/pg655.html

[Churo1]

Look at the UWO academic calendar for example:

Uh hello? There is a minor in software engineering. Also it is accredited by the computer science council, but what about engineers Canada?

[chris0101]

That is a very broad question and it depends entirely on the university, the program, and even on which professors you get (which dictates how the course will be taught to you).

Universities unquestionably do expose you to a great deal of theory, much of it completely irrelevant to your career or that you will never use in your life and charge you full for it even so. >:( However, many schools do offer things like co-op, which gives you the chance to get some on the job experience.

At heart though, it's a degree and a requirement for many career paths. Maybe 20 years ago, a degree wasn't needed, but today, with so many people going into university, it has become a necessity pretty much to get a job with decent pay (although I hear that some trades jobs like electrician, plumber, and various specialities in the energy industry etc. pay handsomely).

[mike24]

Uh hello? There is a minor in software engineering.

Yea, there are extra courses about ethics. What else is there? A silly project?

[Quiggie]

Complexity theory and language/grammar theory enabled you to teach yourself C#?

:lol:

o...k...
My point was that knowing the fundamental theories of computer science would allow someone to grasp a new software technology better than someone else.

[Quiggie]

Most computer science programs at established universities are recognized as professional software engineering degrees.

After all, software engineering is just a watered down version of computer science.
Incorrect. SE is a subset of CS. Kind of like calculus is a subset of math.

[Churo1]

Yea, there are extra courses about ethics. What else is there? A silly project?

I noticed that instead of being accredited by engineers Canada, it is acknowledged in an IT organization as being equivalent to an engineering degree. What now hotshot?

[vavaju]

Look at the UWO academic calendar for example:

Too bad in the real world nobody gives a rat's ass about CIPS.

Look dude, all I'm saying is CS is just that, a CS degree. Nothing more nothing less. If you ever try to put CIPS on your resume you'll get laughed outta town.

[mike24]

Incorrect. SE is a subset of CS. Kind of like calculus is a subset of math.

Software engineering doesn't go into too much detail. Rather, it applies theory to solve practical problems. There would be no software engineered without the use of basic computer science principles.

Calculus is also an applied math where tools are borrowed from pure discrete math. Even the most basic theorem in calculus is first introduced using the Riemann sum.

I noticed that instead of being accredited by engineers Canada, it is acknowledged in an IT organization as being equivalent to an engineering degree. What now hotshot?

Then maybe you can get the PEO to sue CIPS for issuing accredited engineering designations?

Too bad in the real world nobody gives a rat's ass about CIPS.

Look dude, all I'm saying is CS is just that, a CS degree. Nothing more nothing less. If you ever try to put CIPS on your resume you'll get laughed outta town.

You don't know the difference between software engineering and computer science. Read a little bit more to find out for yourself.

Engineering programs like mine, had applied maths, physics, chemistry and other BS that was not necessary. Computer science skips most of the BS and gets down to the real stuff.

In fact, most software engineering instructors are computer scientists themselves.

[jjfz3000]

So, we all know colleges in Canada (also known to as 'trade schools') are designed to put students into blue collar jobs (electricians, plumbers, carpenters, etc.). They are advertised this way and this has become commonly accepted knowledge amongst all Canadians. Universities however are advertised as "learning institutions", supposedly not having job-readiness in mind. However looking at many programs (business,economics,engineering,law school, med school, etc.) these are basically training students for white collar office worker jobs. Even students going into programs such as philosophy often ask the question "what job can I get when I graduate..." expecting that their degree will lead to a career. So the question is: Is university simply white collar job training in this day and age?

No. While people going to universities end up with white collar jobs, that is not the only purpose of universities. Most of the training occurs in the workplace. University teaches people how to think.

[UrbanPoet]

This is the age of credentialism.
The university as an institution has moved away as a place of higher learning. Many argue its now grounds for a training institution...

[zod]

Universities don't really give you job training. You get some academic learning, then you're done, and you've got to find a job.

Some degrees are specific enough to nudge in a direction, some degrees are vague so its hard to find a job that really uses that you learned.

My job now maybe uses 3 or 4 of the classes i took in a 4 year undergrade degree. It makes it an expensive piece of paper, but they wouldn't of hired me without it. It's wierd how that works.

[pace]

yeah... i'm done my 3rd year of school, and i've learned absolutely nothing. everything i've been tested on can be done with calculators and google, imo.

university doesnt teach you to think, it just punishes you for being who you are in the first place (in some cases, not a thinker)

[citizen22]

yeah... i'm done my 3rd year of school, and i've learned absolutely nothing. everything i've been tested on can be done with calculators and google, imo.

university doesnt teach you to think, it just punishes you for being who you are in the first place (in some cases, not a thinker)

University teaches you discipline, imo. In high school, studying for 14 hours straight, followed by an average of 12-14 hours for 2-3 weeks solid was something I'd laugh at. After my second year in undergrad studies, I realize how weak willed I was.

This type of discipline can't be 'trained', nor does it occur over night. It is something that a student has to build-up on their own. I believe that if someone can pull their **** together and study this hard for a week of exams that they have proven to be an asset to any company post grad. Thus, how hard someone works or the level of their work ethic - in the white collar sector - is definitely correlated to GPA.

The problem with this system is what happens when you receive minimal - if any - recognition for your work. God knows how much I wanted to just quit after the result of spending 50+ hours studying for an Econ final, getting 2 MC wrong (ONE OF WHICH I FORGOT BUT REMEMBERED JUST AFTER HANDING IT IN - WOW ****! I WILL NEVER GET OVER IT!!) and misread one question was 83%, dropping my final mark to a B+. I'd imagine a similar feeling in the work force would be to quit and find a job that emphasizes 'satisfaction' at the end of the day.

[Churo1]

Mike24: You've already been proven wrong. Thanks for coming out.

To the people who say university teaches you think: I just picture a bunch of drooling apes who finally go "AHA!" when they listen to their arrogant first year biology teacher tell them how prestigious their research is, or listen to the professor mumble incoherently. Seriously you guys need university to teach you how to think? University doesn't teach you anything. You must have had some real hands on teachers...I had to do all the learning myself.

[vavaju]

Mike24: You've already been proven wrong. Thanks for coming out.

To the people who say university teaches you think: I just picture a bunch of drooling apes who finally go "AHA!" when they listen to their arrogant first year biology teacher tell them how prestigious their research is, or listen to the professor mumble incoherently. Seriously you guys need university to teach you how to think? University doesn't teach you anything. You must have had some real hands on teachers...I had to do all the learning myself.

Totally agree. During my university days I attend the first lecture and exam prep sessions. All the other times I just read the textbooks or course notes.

To me, ALL university degrees do is get a foot in the door when it comes to jobs in the related field. For example, IT companies see that you're from Waterloo or UT, they'll ask "oh yeah, where in waterloo did you live... blah blah blah.. yeah I was there too.. blah blah blah"...basically it forms a connection with your potential boss. And some places (like my previous company I worked for), were only considering Waterloo or UT grads because 99% of the people who worked there had a degree from one of those two universities.

Likewise if you're looking at a job in journalism people see that you're from Carleton and again, same thing...

[nalababe]

Mike24: You've already been proven wrong. Thanks for coming out.

To the people who say university teaches you think: I just picture a bunch of drooling apes who finally go "AHA!" when they listen to their arrogant first year biology teacher tell them how prestigious their research is, or listen to the professor mumble incoherently. Seriously you guys need university to teach you how to think? University doesn't teach you anything. You must have had some real hands on teachers...I had to do all the learning myself.

Wow...for me the focus was on the ability to construct a cohesive argument and defend that argument...that is critical thinking. At the end of 4th year, you should be able to present an idea that is opposition to your supervisor's and be able to defend it successfully. Given much in Science is theory, this is possible.

To stand infront of a panel of professors and defend your thesis is not about regurgitating and there were no class notes (you had to pour through journals, talk to profs at your university, talk with profs at other universities). Yes, the learning is by yourself, the role of the prof is to guide, not simply teach.

ftr, this was undergraduate and biology...

[Krox]

Wow...for me the focus was on the ability to construct a cohesive argument and defend that argument...that is critical thinking. At the end of 4th year, you should be able to present an idea that is opposition to your supervisor's and be able to defend it successfully. Given much in Science is theory, this is possible.

To stand infront of a panel of professors and defend your thesis is not about regurgitating and there were no class notes (you had to pour through journals, talk to profs at your university, talk with profs at other universities). Yes, the learning is by yourself, the role of the prof is to guide, not simply teach.

ftr, this was undergraduate and biology...

Pretty much agree, maybe it has to do with sciences (I was in molecular biology for undergrad).

My g/f got a MSc. and started working in the pharma industry. Straight out of school she got an entry level position working besides people who were straight out of undergrad.

It wasn't long before she was promoted before other more 'senior' people who didn't have a master's. It wasn't the master's degree which made the difference, it was the soft skills she obtained. She had better time management skills, she was much more likely to take initiative over problems, etc.

And it wasn't just her. A few of her friends who also had Master's degrees, also out performed co-workers with equal work experience. To me the same principles also apply to undergrad. A recent undergrad graduate will out perform a recent high school graduate.

Although, I guess it really all depends on your mentality. You only get as much as you put into it. I went to university to learn whereas some people go to get taught. To me that is also the difference between college and university.

[IceBlueShoes12]

You go to college to learn how to do things...
you go to university to learn how to think critically and rationalize.
that's it.

[Davecachia]

yeah... i'm done my 3rd year of school, and i've learned absolutely nothing. everything i've been tested on can be done with calculators and google, imo.

university doesnt teach you to think, it just punishes you for being who you are in the first place (in some cases, not a thinker)

Ryerson I am assuming?

[BananaHunter]

What I learned from university:

-Grades don't mean jack in North America.
-Educational institutes want your money. That's all. They can charge you sky high prices by making you think your future will be bright.
-If you happen to land a job afterwards, good for you. Companies use education as an excuse to not hire people. Afterall, more education is preferred to less education. In many jobs, you don't exercise the majority of what you learned. There is very little correlation between job performance and education. But it sucks that you still need a degree. Someday, we may need degrees to flip hamburgers.

[TerenceL]

Software engineering doesn't go into too much detail. Rather, it applies theory to solve practical problems. There would be no software engineered without the use of basic computer science principles.

Calculus is also an applied math where tools are borrowed from pure discrete math. Even the most basic theorem in calculus is first introduced using the Riemann sum.



Then maybe you can get the PEO to sue CIPS for issuing accredited engineering designations?



You don't know the difference between software engineering and computer science. Read a little bit more to find out for yourself.

Engineering programs like mine, had applied maths, physics, chemistry and other BS that was not necessary. Computer science skips most of the BS and gets down to the real stuff.

In fact, most software engineering instructors are computer scientists themselves.

There's a difference between an ACCREDITED software engineering program like the one at UW, and some computer science program that allows you to "specialize" in software engineering.

[ThinkOutsideTheBox]

That's it. I've had enough of you people treating my thread like it's a public toilet...pissing and shitting all over it.

The truth is: people who go into university do not know how to think. They are taught how to think by very dedicated professors. These professors are similar to the ancient wisemen, single-handedly turning young non-thinkers into thinkers.

Colleges you are just taught how to do a repetitive task while the professor horsewhips you (think ancient Egyptian-like), Churns out woodworkers and/or plumbers.

END OF DISCUSSION.

Haha, how has nobody responded this this thread yet? This guy sounds like an absolute........oh wait, might be an infraction notice for calling someone stupid, nevermind

Ryerson I am assuming?
Dude, I went to Ryerson. I have a great job. I love people who bash Ryerson without (a) having ever attended there or (b) having applied for a job that a Ryerson graduate got. I learned a lot as well, and believe me, I beat other UofT, Waterloo engineers for my job.

[Ceryx]

Dude, I went to Ryerson. I have a great job. I love people who bash Ryerson without (a) having ever attended there or (b) having applied for a job that a Ryerson graduate got. I learned a lot as well, and believe me, I beat other UofT, Waterloo engineers for my job.

I didn't attend Ryerson but I can tell you their engineering is not even close to UT/Waterloo.

Not only they copy UT's courses (UT has a new course, Ryerson will have it a year later on) but also the quality of the student isn't on par with UT/Waterloo.

And their students like to brag that they're almost as good as UT/Waterloo.

The bottom line: Why would you want to go to Ryerson if you can go to UT/Waterloo?

That being said, there are great studnets coming out from Ryerson, just the percentage is much lower than UT/Watelroo. That's why a lot of employer rather go with UT/Waterloo to minimize the risk.

[ThinkOutsideTheBox]

I didn't attend Ryerson but I can tell you their engineering is not even close to UT/Waterloo.
That's exactly what I"m talking about, what's your basis for this? A lot of the engineering courses use the same textbooks, and the same material is taught. Some classes are harder, some are easier. Again, completely variable.


Not only they copy UT's courses (UT has a new course, Ryerson will have it a year later on) but also the quality of the student isn't on par with UT/Waterloo.
Example?


And their students like to brag that they're almost as good as UT/Waterloo.

They are better than some, not all. Who is bragging? An idiot that goes to a school is an idiot regardless of the name of the school. Same applies to smart people.


That being said, there are great studnets coming out from Ryerson, just the percentage is much lower than UT/Watelroo. That's why a lot of employer rather go with UT/Waterloo to minimize the risk.
Stats, or basis, perhaps personal experience to back this up? For your second point, that's employers would rather go to UT/Waterloo, I can tell you from personal experience, there are a TONNE of Ryerson grads in my field that got jobs over their UofT counterparts (Waterloo doesn't have an IE program).

[lookingforstufffff]

Getting the job and keeping the job are two different things. I'd like to see stats between all these comparisons (schools) before making conclusions on what is and is not a good school for X program.

[stevethewheel]

+1

A good friend of mine is a professor at UWO, she says that it depends on the university... I believe her favorite phrase is "If you can walk, you can go to Brock" So it depends on the school. :D

Sounds easier than it used to be "if you can walk and talk you can go to Brock"

[AirplaneKing]

That's it. I've had enough of you people treating my thread like it's a public toilet...pissing and shitting all over it.

The truth is: people who go into university do not know how to think. They are taught how to think by very dedicated professors. These professors are similar to the ancient wisemen, single-handedly turning young non-thinkers into thinkers.

Colleges you are just taught how to do a repetitive task while the professor horsewhips you (think ancient Egyptian-like), Churns out woodworkers and/or plumbers.

END OF DISCUSSION.

Why do you start a thread if you are not looking to elicit responses or debate? Why not just post a blog and disable comments...

[onexeyed]

You go to college to learn how to do things...
you go to university to learn how to think critically and rationalize.
that's it.

Yes so true.

Finding a job these days isn't about what you know but who you know, especially if you want a "white collar" career.

[Bleys007]

Does anyone else think Churo (OP) comes off as a very angry person?

[sardaukar]

Dude, I went to Ryerson. I have a great job. I love people who bash Ryerson without (a) having ever attended there or (b) having applied for a job that a Ryerson graduate got. I learned a lot as well, and believe me, I beat other UofT, Waterloo engineers for my job.

There are a few Ryerson grads at my firm (Big 4 CA). They aren't any better or worse than people from other schools.

[Churo1]

Does anyone else think Churo (OP) comes off as a very angry person?

Truth isn't always pretty. Sorry if I touched a nerve.

[resu]

Truth isn't always pretty. Sorry if I touched a nerve.

Uhuh. Throwing a tantrum because you were rejected by some universities?

[Ceryx]

That's exactly what I"m talking about, what's your basis for this? A lot of the engineering courses use the same textbooks, and the same material is taught. Some classes are harder, some are easier. Again, completely variable.


Example?


They are better than some, not all. Who is bragging? An idiot that goes to a school is an idiot regardless of the name of the school. Same applies to smart people.


Stats, or basis, perhaps personal experience to back this up? For your second point, that's employers would rather go to UT/Waterloo, I can tell you from personal experience, there are a TONNE of Ryerson grads in my field that got jobs over their UofT counterparts (Waterloo doesn't have an IE program).

Check Research in Motion, see where they recruit their Software Engineers?
Check ATI/AMD, see where they recruit their ASIC engineers?
I'm pretty sure there are not many Ryerson grad in this kind of places.

You need at least 80's in high school to get into UT/Waterloo engineering and you only need 60's to get into Ryerson. Which school has the higher probabilities of getting idiots?

It is no secret that Ryerson Engineering coincidentally made changes to their courses a year after UT made their changes. This is back in early 2000, I don't think this has changed a lot in the past couple of years.

Don't get me wrong, Ryerson is a great school, just not as good as UT/Waterloo. There is nothing wrong with Ryerson, just wrong with their grad thinking their degree is as good as UT/Waterloo.

[mike24]

Check Research in Motion, see where they recruit their Software Engineers?
Check ATI/AMD, see where they recruit their ASIC engineers?
I'm pretty sure there are not many Ryerson grad in this kind of places.

Companies are not inclined towards recruiting graduates from only one school. My friends from UWO engineering got great jobs at RIM. Some secured very good internship positions at AMD and Microsoft.


Don't get me wrong, Ryerson is a great school, just not as good as UT/Waterloo. There is nothing wrong with Ryerson, just wrong with their grad thinking their degree is as good as UT/Waterloo.

You have to stop being delusional. A school that is accredited gives anyone who actually tries hard enough to secure a good job after graduation. Success at securing a good job matters on experience, networking and knowledge. It doesn't depend on the piece of paper that you got. You could still be dumb after receiving a degree from UW. I've worked with UW 3rd year ECE interns who could not tell the difference between an inductor and a capacitor.

[Bleys007]

Truth isn't always pretty. Sorry if I touched a nerve.

What nerve? I looked through the thread, and most of the time when someone replies to you, you get pissed off. Looking at some of your other posts, there's a hostile trend in a lot of them. In one of them you say you were temp. banned for a personal attack on someone in another thread, and didn't understand why.

It just seems like a lot of your posts are really negative. I guess that would be the ugly truth?

[Ceryx]

You have to stop being delusional. A school that is accredited gives anyone who actually tries hard enough to secure a good job after graduation. Success at securing a good job matters on experience, networking and knowledge. It doesn't depend on the piece of paper that you got. You could still be dumb after receiving a degree from UW. I've worked with UW 3rd year ECE interns who could not tell the difference between an inductor and a capacitor.

Don't get me wrong. Education helps you, but doesn't guarantee anything.

UT/Waterloo degree gives you advantages competiting with other engineering school. It doesn't mean that all UT/Waterloo graduate are always the best. It just means that their grad have better odds when it comes to interview. UT/Waterloo grad will have more interviews compared to UWO/Ryerson engineering grad.

A lot of engineering firm don't even know UWO has an engineering program. It doesn't means that UWO graduate can't get a great job. It just means that it is likely that technology firms will start finding engineers from those two schools.

That's also why the entrance mark for UT/Waterloo engineering are much higher than UWO. In result, the quality of the students in average also tends to be higher than other school.

[TerenceL]

Don't get me wrong. Education helps you, but doesn't guarantee anything.

UT/Waterloo degree gives you advantages competiting with other engineering school. It doesn't mean that all UT/Waterloo graduate are always the best. It just means that their grad have better odds when it comes to interview. UT/Waterloo grad will have more interviews compared to UWO/Ryerson engineering grad.

A lot of engineering firm don't even know UWO has an engineering program. It doesn't means that UWO graduate can't get a great job. It just means that it is likely that technology firms will start finding engineers from those two schools.

That's also why the entrance mark for UT/Waterloo engineering are much higher than UWO. In result, the quality of the students in average also tends to be higher than other school.

Just to add to this, Waterloo's coop lets students have such a competitive edge. Essentially, if you're in coop, you're already a good 2 years ahead of everyone else. Who would you choose, a fresh UW grad with 6 coop terms of experience at different companies, or a fresh grad with little to no experience in the real world? Most internship/coop programs at other universities simply do not hold a candle to UW's coop. And interview skills! Having 10+ interviews per term is bound to make you perform better in interviews than average.

[geronimo]

I think some people don't value university enough, and that is their problem. In my opinion, you learn more than just job training, at least I know I have and I appreciate the experience and have grown from it, as I always have throughout my history in the education system.

[Churo1]

Uhuh. Throwing a tantrum because you were rejected by some universities?

Ya, I was rejected by Lakehead and had to settle for UofT. Thems the breaks.

[Churo1]

What nerve? I looked through the thread, and most of the time when someone replies to you, you get pissed off. Looking at some of your other posts, there's a hostile trend in a lot of them. In one of them you say you were temp. banned for a personal attack on someone in another thread, and didn't understand why.

It just seems like a lot of your posts are really negative. I guess that would be the ugly truth?

Yeah, I still don't understand why I was banned. I called a 15 year old childish for asking stupid questions about a McDonalds application. Also, grow a thicker skin, you'll need it. Unless you're female. Then just don't marry a wimp.

[Churo1]

I think some people don't value university enough, and that is their problem. In my opinion, you learn more than just job training, at least I know I have and I appreciate the experience and have grown from it, as I always have throughout my history in the education system.

Aren't you a current student? If so sorry but you don't know anything. Wait til you get out in the professional world. You'll look back and say..."buh?"

[Churo1]

Check Research in Motion, see where they recruit their Software Engineers?
Check ATI/AMD, see where they recruit their ASIC engineers?
I'm pretty sure there are not many Ryerson grad in this kind of places.

You need at least 80's in high school to get into UT/Waterloo engineering and you only need 60's to get into Ryerson. Which school has the higher probabilities of getting idiots?

It is no secret that Ryerson Engineering coincidentally made changes to their courses a year after UT made their changes. This is back in early 2000, I don't think this has changed a lot in the past couple of years.

Don't get me wrong, Ryerson is a great school, just not as good as UT/Waterloo. There is nothing wrong with Ryerson, just wrong with their grad thinking their degree is as good as UT/Waterloo.

WOW YOU MEAN A COMPANY LOCATED IN WATERLOO RECRUITS STUDENTS MAINLY FROM AN INSTITUTION THAT IS GEARED TOWARDS IT? ALSO NOT EVERY UNIVERSITY HAS SOFTWARE ENGINEERING. TO ADD TO THIS WATERLOO'S IS SPECIFICALLY TAILORED TO MAKING YOU A RIM SWEAT SHOP WORKER FOR LIFE. ALSO HIGH SCHOOL MARKS DON'T MEAN ANYTHING. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH A RYERSON EDUCATION BY THE WAY. THERE IS A RYERSON GRADUATE AT MY WORK RIGHT NOW TEACHING A UOFT GRAD HOW TO DO DESIGN. WHAT NOW TOUGH GUY? You're welcome children.

[Bleys007]

WOW YOU MEAN A COMPANY LOCATED IN WATERLOO RECRUITS STUDENTS MAINLY FROM AN INSTITUTION THAT IS GEARED TOWARDS IT? ALSO NOT EVERY UNIVERSITY HAS SOFTWARE ENGINEERING. TO ADD TO THIS WATERLOO'S IS SPECIFICALLY TAILORED TO MAKING YOU A RIM SWEAT SHOP WORKER FOR LIFE. ALSO HIGH SCHOOL MARKS DON'T MEAN ANYTHING. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH A RYERSON EDUCATION BY THE WAY. THERE IS A RYERSON GRADUATE AT MY WORK RIGHT NOW TEACHING A UOFT GRAD HOW TO DO DESIGN. WHAT NOW TOUGH GUY? You're welcome children.

Ya, you're right. You're not angry at all. lol

[lookingforstufffff]

Someone did not teach this guy how to multi-quote on forums yet.

Just to add to this, Waterloo's coop lets students have such a competitive edge. Essentially, if you're in coop, you're already a good 2 years ahead of everyone else. Who would you choose, a fresh UW grad with 6 coop terms of experience at different companies, or a fresh grad with little to no experience in the real world? Most internship/coop programs at other universities simply do not hold a candle to UW's coop. And interview skills! Having 10+ interviews per term is bound to make you perform better in interviews than average.

I can agree with you on this that UWaterloo's Co-op is by far the best, but that doesn't mean you get a competitive edge as there are plenty of other schools that offer co-op/internships, they might not be as good but they definitely provide the experience given you get the right job.

[Churo1]

Someone did not teach this guy how to multi-quote on forums yet.



I can agree with you on this that UWaterloo's Co-op is by far the best, but that doesn't mean you get a competitive edge as there are plenty of other schools that offer co-op/internships, they might not be as good but they definitely provide the experience given you get the right job.

I respond as I come across the messages. That is how I operate.

[needinformation]

That's it. I've had enough of you people treating my thread like it's a public toilet...pissing and shitting all over it.

The truth is: people who go into university do not know how to think. They are taught how to think by very dedicated professors. These professors are similar to the ancient wisemen, single-handedly turning young non-thinkers into thinkers.

Colleges you are just taught how to do a repetitive task while the professor horsewhips you (think ancient Egyptian-like), Churns out woodworkers and/or plumbers.

END OF DISCUSSION.

you are funny!!..that is a good analogy.

cool!
I like the wiseman part. .... too bad that most academic models were designed after the greek school and further polished by english models, which were influenced by german and with a touch of the roman. In all, nobody is crapping on your thread!

come on.

[needinformation]

Mike24: You've already been proven wrong. Thanks for coming out.

To the people who say university teaches you think: I just picture a bunch of drooling apes who finally go "AHA!" when they listen to their arrogant first year biology teacher tell them how prestigious their research is, or listen to the professor mumble incoherently. Seriously you guys need university to teach you how to think? University doesn't teach you anything. You must have had some real hands on teachers...I had to do all the learning myself.


it depends how you learn, this is why governments and systems have different schools.

Some people learn by doing (like hands on approach) and some people learn by thinking and figuring stuff out, some learn by way of both.

In this day an age, the old systematic and classical model of university that believed that it was only for some students (same with community colleges) that is gone. It all depends on the program you want to take. Tuition is no longer afordable to all, you can find really bright and dedicated students in colleges and you can find total slackers in university as well. Vice versa.

The point is that it does not matter where you end up , it is more about what you make out of it. What the student takes and makes out of the program. And to the poster that said that university also has a lot more to offer in terms of learning, you are right. Let's stop arguing about this is all about individual learning curves. You can learn how to think critically in general but apply it into a specific science or a subject is in itself something that has to be thought. Like medicine, law (not everyone can think like a true lawyer), design and know the methods of desing like an architect, learn how to clean water like engineers do in a massive scale, make huge projections and forecasts in which people's lives depend on. Sure there are smart people, even geniuses that can think critically in their feet but at some point in time during the critical approach to anything, you will need to be tought certain techniques or be directed by someone who has a bit more indepth knowledge about a certain subject. This process will indeed humble a lot of people and if it does not then you have not learned how to learn.

[Churo1]

it depends how you learn, this is why governments and systems have different schools.

Some people learn by doing (like hands on approach) and some people learn by thinking and figuring stuff out, some learn by way of both.

In this day an age, the old systematic and classical model of university that believed that it was only for some students (same with community colleges) that is gone. It all depends on the program you want to take. Tuition is no longer afordable to all, you can find really bright and dedicated students in colleges and you can find total slackers in university as well. Vice versa.

The point is that it does not matter where you end up , it is more about what you make out of it. What the student takes and makes out of the program. And to the poster that said that university also has a lot more to offer in terms of learning, you are right. Let's stop arguing about this is all about individual learning curves. You can learn how to think critically in general but apply it into a specific science or a subject is in itself something that has to be thought. Like medicine, law (not everyone can think like a true lawyer), design and know the methods of desing like an architect, learn how to clean water like engineers do in a massive scale, make huge projections and forecasts in which people's lives depend on. Sure there are smart people, even geniuses that can think critically in their feet but at some point in time during the critical approach to anything, you will need to be tought certain techniques or be directed by someone who has a bit more indepth knowledge about a certain subject. This process will indeed humble a lot of people and if it does not then you have not learned how to learn.

Uhuh. I'm sure with those critical skills you develop at university you will be designing weather stations and water supplies your first day on the job. Someone is in for a rude surprise.

[lookingforstufffff]

This is what I'm getting from this topic.

College: Memorizing without knowing why X and Y occurs
University: Understanding the material so that it can be applied later on to similar concepts.

Now with that said, people that "memorize" for tests in University can do just as well as the people who study and understand the material, but that's just for the one topic.

[Churo1]

This is what I'm getting from this topic.

College: Memorizing without knowing why X and Y occurs
University: Understanding the material so that it can be applied later on to similar concepts.

Now with that said, people that "memorize" for tests in University can do just as well as the people who study and understand the material, but that's just for the one topic.

Well I guess you haven't learned anything then.

College: Wood workers and manual labourers/homeless people
University: Future leaders of society

[mike24]

Well I guess you haven't learned anything then.

College: Wood workers and manual labourers/homeless people
University: Future leaders of society

LOL, wood workers have the potential to make more money than engineers. My neighbor is a carpenter and he makes more than an established engineer. He is his own boss and lives quite comfortably with very little stress.

The engineers I know work under stress and are not well compensated for their efforts. Sometimes they have to wake up in the middle of the night and find the problem that shut down the production line. While the mechanics and industrial electricians just stand by and watch. I'd love to have a job where I stand or walk around for 8 hours and get paid $30+/hr for about 2 hours of real work.

And if you studied a bit of history or politics then the first class of society that were purged during a revolution were academics and engineers. I don't think that university graduates can be leaders. They are useful idiots who become misleaders. Stalin purged many educated professionals who contributed to the revolution. During the 1979 Iranian revolution, academics were the first to run for their lives.

[ricsad]

You guys don't get it. The OP didn't ask you guys a question so he can get answers. He already knows the answer. You're supposed to give him an opportunity to express his opinion, agree with him, then tell him how wise he is. Disagreements not tolerated!

END OF DISCUSSION

[needinformation]

Uhuh. I'm sure with those critical skills you develop at university you will be designing weather stations and water supplies your first day on the job. Someone is in for a rude surprise.


As I said not everyone is the same, some people actually ARE thrown into making big projects right away while some are forced to work in customer service. It is all about the knowledge that you gain however.

Eventually university education is better.

[victorwooten]

So, we all know colleges in Canada (also known to as 'trade schools') are designed to put students into blue collar jobs (electricians, plumbers, carpenters, etc.). They are advertised this way and this has become commonly accepted knowledge amongst all Canadians. Universities however are advertised as "learning institutions", supposedly not having job-readiness in mind. However looking at many programs (business,economics,engineering,law school, med school, etc.) these are basically training students for white collar office worker jobs. Even students going into programs such as philosophy often ask the question "what job can I get when I graduate..." expecting that their degree will lead to a career. So the question is: Is university simply white collar job training in this day and age?
nice thread :lol: you're messing with our minds

[victorwooten]

So, we all know colleges in Canada (also known to as 'trade schools') are designed to put students into blue collar jobs (electricians, plumbers, carpenters, etc.). They are advertised this way and this has become commonly accepted knowledge amongst all Canadians. Universities however are advertised as "learning institutions", supposedly not having job-readiness in mind. However looking at many programs (business,economics,engineering,law school, med school, etc.) these are basically training students for white collar office worker jobs. Even students going into programs such as philosophy often ask the question "what job can I get when I graduate..." expecting that their degree will lead to a career. So the question is: Is university simply white collar job training in this day and age?

You say how it's common knowledge how colleges are designed to put students into that blue collar job and contrast it with university.

"Universities however are advertised as "learning institutions", supposedly not having job-readiness in mind."

It is also common knowledge that universities have always been designed to put students in those white collar jobs although not necessarily "white collar office worker jobs" as you said, as I think of a cubicle in a shiny building. You obviously go there and spend all that money so you can get that white collar job.

So the question "Is university simply white collar job training in this day and age?" University can be a white collar job requirement, and depending on the job/career may also be white collar job training. Whether or not you believe university provides adequate training is another issue, and there's obviously on the job training. What's important is if the program is designed to prepare you in anyway for said job. Law school and medical school are examples of training. For an Intelligence Officer with the CSIS you need any Bachelor's degree, which to me is a requirement rather than training.

"Even students going into programs such as philosophy often ask the question "what job can I get when I graduate..." expecting that their degree will lead to a career."

nice one lol

[Nyte]

I'd love to have a job where I stand or walk around for 8 hours and get paid $30+/hr for about 2 hours of real work.

That sounds awfully boring.

[Aznsilvrboy]

That's it. I've had enough of you people treating my thread like it's a public toilet...pissing and shitting all over it.

The truth is: people who go into university do not know how to think. They are taught how to think by very dedicated professors. These professors are similar to the ancient wisemen, single-handedly turning young non-thinkers into thinkers.

Colleges you are just taught how to do a repetitive task while the professor horsewhips you (think ancient Egyptian-like), Churns out woodworkers and/or plumbers.

END OF DISCUSSION.

Another person who just reads the title and then posts. PLEASE AT LEAST READ THE FIRST ENTRY IN THE THREAD BEFORE POSTING A RESPONSE. THANK YOU.

you missed the whole point of the thread. Also computer science is not a professional program. Thank you.

Mike24: You've already been proven wrong. Thanks for coming out.

To the people who say university teaches you think: I just picture a bunch of drooling apes who finally go "AHA!" when they listen to their arrogant first year biology teacher tell them how prestigious their research is, or listen to the professor mumble incoherently. Seriously you guys need university to teach you how to think? University doesn't teach you anything. You must have had some real hands on teachers...I had to do all the learning myself.

Truth isn't always pretty. Sorry if I touched a nerve.

Yeah, I still don't understand why I was banned. I called a 15 year old childish for asking stupid questions about a McDonalds application. Also, grow a thicker skin, you'll need it. Unless you're female. Then just don't marry a wimp.

Ya, I was rejected by Lakehead and had to settle for UofT. Thems the breaks.

Aren't you a current student? If so sorry but you don't know anything. Wait til you get out in the professional world. You'll look back and say..."buh?"

WOW YOU MEAN A COMPANY LOCATED IN WATERLOO RECRUITS STUDENTS MAINLY FROM AN INSTITUTION THAT IS GEARED TOWARDS IT? ALSO NOT EVERY UNIVERSITY HAS SOFTWARE ENGINEERING. TO ADD TO THIS WATERLOO'S IS SPECIFICALLY TAILORED TO MAKING YOU A RIM SWEAT SHOP WORKER FOR LIFE. ALSO HIGH SCHOOL MARKS DON'T MEAN ANYTHING. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH A RYERSON EDUCATION BY THE WAY. THERE IS A RYERSON GRADUATE AT MY WORK RIGHT NOW TEACHING A UOFT GRAD HOW TO DO DESIGN. WHAT NOW TOUGH GUY? You're welcome children.

Uhuh. I'm sure with those critical skills you develop at university you will be designing weather stations and water supplies your first day on the job. Someone is in for a rude surprise.

Well I guess you haven't learned anything then.

College: Wood workers and manual labourers/homeless people
University: Future leaders of society

So OP asked the question:

"So the question is: Is university simply white collar job training in this day and age?"

Then 11/20 of his replies in this thread are all disagreeing with other people's opinions. Why make the thread in the first place?

[Churo1]

You guys don't get it. The OP didn't ask you guys a question so he can get answers. He already knows the answer. You're supposed to give him an opportunity to express his opinion, agree with him, then tell him how wise he is. Disagreements not tolerated!

END OF DISCUSSION

Think you've got it all figured out? Don't worry people will keep on posting anyway..muwhahahaaaaa

[ThinkOutsideTheBox]

Check Research in Motion, see where they recruit their Software Engineers?
Check ATI/AMD, see where they recruit their ASIC engineers?
I'm pretty sure there are not many Ryerson grad in this kind of places.
You need at least 80's in high school to get into UT/Waterloo engineering and you only need 60's to get into Ryerson. Which school has the higher probabilities of getting idiots? .
That's my point. You are making suppositions. You are telling me to go check. Well, why don't you check and then let us know. And to Churo's point. RIM hires people from Waterloo because they have prime recruiting ability there. But anyway, here is a bit of my experience:
1) I have a friend who did comp eng at Ryerson --> he's leading a design team at RIM
2) I have a friend who did IE at Ryerson --> he's a PM at RIM
To your point --> if you look at HS marks as indicative of success, then yes, UT/Waterloo grads have a higher likelyhood of success. If you look at ACTUAL job performance after the fact, you'll likely see that it is completely dependant on the person. I know UT grads who are still unemployeed (at least in their field) after 2 years and the same with Ryerson grads.


It is no secret that Ryerson Engineering coincidentally made changes to their courses a year after UT made their changes. This is back in early 2000, I don't think this has changed a lot in the past couple of years..
I'm not really sure what the point is here. UT changed their program and Ryerson copied? First of all, I don't know whether that is true or not (as I'm assuming you don't actually know either), but what difference does that make. I guess since UofT has a mechanical engineering department, no one else should.

Don't get me wrong, Ryerson is a great school, just not as good as UT/Waterloo. There is nothing wrong with Ryerson, just wrong with their grad thinking their degree is as good as UT/Waterloo.
Haha, this is great. I love people who backtrack to attempt to be polite when they are very explicit about their feelings. Dude, I don't really care one way or another, but at least I'd respect you if you were just honest and said 'I think Ryerson is a terrible school'. And believe me, I've worked with grads from all of these schools. Our degree is just as good as a UT/Waterloo degree.

Don't get me wrong. Education helps you, but doesn't guarantee anything.

blah blah blah.....

BS buddy. I've already stated examples where Ryerson grads were picked over UT/Waterloo grads, just as I'm sure there are examples of UT/Waterloo grads being picked over Ryerson.

Just to add to this, Waterloo's coop lets students have such a competitive edge. Essentially, if you're in coop, you're already a good 2 years ahead of everyone else. Who would you choose, a fresh UW grad with 6 coop terms of experience at different companies, or a fresh grad with little to no experience in the real world? Most internship/coop programs at other universities simply do not hold a candle to UW's coop. And interview skills! Having 10+ interviews per term is bound to make you perform better in interviews than average.
See, this guy at least has a constructive, arguable point. I completely agree with you. The ability to practice interviewing and the opportunity for solid engineering experience is what sets UW apart. The quality of education may or may not be better, but the Coop program does make it a great university.

[Churo1]

That's my point. You are making suppositions. You are telling me to go check. Well, why don't you check and then let us know. And to Churo's point. RIM hires people from Waterloo because they have prime recruiting ability there. But anyway, here is a bit of my experience:
1) I have a friend who did comp eng at Ryerson --> he's leading a design team at RIM
2) I have a friend who did IE at Ryerson --> he's a PM at RIM
To your point --> if you look at HS marks as indicative of success, then yes, UT/Waterloo grads have a higher likelyhood of success. If you look at ACTUAL job performance after the fact, you'll likely see that it is completely dependant on the person. I know UT grads who are still unemployeed (at least in their field) after 2 years and the same with Ryerson grads.


I'm not really sure what the point is here. UT changed their program and Ryerson copied? First of all, I don't know whether that is true or not (as I'm assuming you don't actually know either), but what difference does that make. I guess since UofT has a mechanical engineering department, no one else should.

Haha, this is great. I love people who backtrack to attempt to be polite when they are very explicit about their feelings. Dude, I don't really care one way or another, but at least I'd respect you if you were just honest and said 'I think Ryerson is a terrible school'. And believe me, I've worked with grads from all of these schools. Our degree is just as good as a UT/Waterloo degree.


BS buddy. I've already stated examples where Ryerson grads were picked over UT/Waterloo grads, just as I'm sure there are examples of UT/Waterloo grads being picked over Ryerson.


See, this guy at least has a constructive, arguable point. I completely agree with you. The ability to practice interviewing and the opportunity for solid engineering experience is what sets UW apart. The quality of education may or may not be better, but the Coop program does make it a great university.

What? Waterloo's coop is not better than anyone elses, and this includes schools that don't have official coop programs. Compare the number of students who get MEANINGFUL (not photocopying papers, not making people tea, not sweeping their floors etc) positions at Waterloo and at other schools and there will be very little difference. It's up to the student to get his position. No one cares if your school officially offers coop, just make a resume, advertise yourself, tell them what you want and what your skills are. Also I think UofT's PEY is the best coop program, you actually work long enough at a real job in order to be productive and they have industry connections with companies other than RIM which is more than Waterloo can say.

[nyrz]

Also I think UofT's PEY is the best coop program, you actually work long enough at a real job in order to be productive and they have industry connections with companies other than RIM which is more than Waterloo can say.

That's ignorant.

[unowned]

What? Waterloo's coop is not better than anyone elses, and this includes schools that don't have official coop programs. Compare the number of students who get MEANINGFUL (not photocopying papers, not making people tea, not sweeping their floors etc) positions at Waterloo and at other schools and there will be very little difference. It's up to the student to get his position. No one cares if your school officially offers coop, just make a resume, advertise yourself, tell them what you want and what your skills are. Also I think UofT's PEY is the best coop program, you actually work long enough at a real job in order to be productive and they have industry connections with companies other than RIM which is more than Waterloo can say.

PEY program is indeed, more in-depth due to it's length compared to the waterloo program...

Waterloo students land a larger breadth of experience...

In the end, it comes down to breadth vs depth (sound familiar...graphs lol).

With that being said, hiring, post graduation, waterloo kills u of t, go ask any u of t profs as well as look at the stats of companies and where theyre hiring from...this is from my personal experience as well as others i've known that went to waterloo...


P.S., i'm a u of t grad.

[nyrz]

So, we all know colleges in Canada (also known to as 'trade schools') are designed to put students into blue collar jobs (electricians, plumbers, carpenters, etc.). They are advertised this way and this has become commonly accepted knowledge amongst all Canadians.

However looking at many programs (business,economics,engineering,law school, med school, etc.) these are basically training students for white collar office worker jobs.

That's ignorant.

You can get a white collar office job and other types of jobs with a college degree.

[leoben]

status anxiety of north americans makes me feel sad. sad, sad people.

[nyrz]

status anxiety of north americans makes me feel sad. sad, sad people.

it's sad that people who are university educated can still be ignorant

[Churo1]

it's sad that people who are university educated can still be ignorant

All I had to do was dangle the carrot and you fell right into the trap. Who's the ignorant one?