- 在線時間
- 42 小時
- 最後登錄
- 20-10-23
- 國民生產力
- 2
- 附加生產力
- 770
- 貢獻生產力
- 0
- 註冊時間
- 07-11-29
- 閱讀權限
- 10
- 帖子
- 445
- 主題
- 2
- 精華
- 0
- 積分
- 1217
- UID
- 169056
 
|
Personally I don't think 「對口就業」is a correct concept.
In the old days, university is a place for broarding the mind & stimulating the intellect, whereas polytechnic is for vocational training (such as banking, management, administration). Other than a few truly vocational degrees such as medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, architecture...etc, all degrees can lead to whatever career the student wants to go into later in life. Of course some will find a deep interest in the subject and will go onto M.Phil. or Phd, or into a related industry, but that is actually not the norm. As mentioned in the article, accountancy is a very good example - you can study whatever degree and can still become an accountant. The biggest misconception is law - one doesn't have to want to be a lawyer to study law! In fact, if you apply to law schools in the UK, you'll be advised not to mention wanting to be a lawyer, but merely why you are interested in law as a subject. Contrary to what most people believe, many law graduates go into a different direction upon graduation- banking, accountancy, commerce, poltics..etc.
I think the distinction between intellectual stimulation & vocational training blurred somewhat ever since polytechnics were upgraded to become universities. Having been upgraded, polytechnics feel the need to do research to keep up their status & universities have to think of vocational paths for their students in view of competition.
May be my cocept is outdated, but unless my childen want to do a truly vocational degree, I don't think it matters what subject they choose to study at undergraduate level. Even if they choose an obscure subject, I don.t think it would harm them in the job market in future. It might even end up being a good talking point in job interviews!! |
|
發表於 13-2-22 09:50
