Talk:Institute of technology

Distinct pages?

Should Institute of technology and Polytechnic be seperated once again as two distinct pages? This article appears to be struggling to reconcile the two...with only a small mention of their historically vast differences over several decades of their evolution.--Huaiwei 05:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably what needs to be better clarified is that both terms have been used for both Universities and for what in Australia is called Technical and Further Education with a more vocational education focus. Splitting would still require this to be explained. There is substantial overlap as different national education systems tend to use one or the other. Paul foord 13:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Or both...with different meanings for each. Which is why it is inherently difficult to lump everything together in one article when they can mean quite different things. Singapore, for example, still have Polytechnics which are not considered universities. Perhaps it makes better sense for each school type to have its own page, emphasizing on particular localities and institutions which uses that term or system, while also discussing similarities with other terminologies/systems, whether contemporarily or historically?--Huaiwei 13:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Institues of Technology vs. Polytechnics

I have added three requests for {{fact}} in the text as a number of conclusions are drawn in the article and need referencing. Djegan 18:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IITs

I seriously doubt the Indian Institutes of Technology are "Institutes of technology" as described in this article, despite the name. The IITs are not polytechnic, ITIs (Industrial Training Institute, which are also located in India) are. When I went about correcting this, I found that this "mis"-information is present in many other articles as well. In order to confirm, I did extensive google searching, and could not find any direct mention of IITs as vocational institutes or polytechnics from any source other than mirrors of Wikipedia. I have removed the info from Indian Institutes of Technology article, but want to discuss before making changes throughout Wikipedia. Another clarification...In India, all engineering degrees take four years, as with the BTech in IITs. Hence there is again no correlation with professional BTech as mentioned in some of the articles. If any of you feel otherwise, please provide verifiable sources that back the claims. I again want to mention that despite similarities in name, in India the meaning of Institute of Technology is very different from the European definition. Though IITs give a few PG diplomas, it will be wrong to label the whole university as vocational institute. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: Though I mentioned IITs, the National Institutes of Technology also fit the same profile and whatever decision is taken, will apply to them also. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another section in the article discusses IIT's using the term "institute of technology" for "historical reasons" which is quite true (backing my statement). However, the article still mentions IIT in "India" section, which is confusing. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Vocational universities

What overlap is there with the article on Vocational universities? Paul foord 14:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UK polytechnics

Amgiambi; you are getting way off track with your additions and corrections. Engineering (structural, electrical, mechanical) is also taught in universities, and the public disdain for it (if it exists!) would equally apply to wherever it is being taught! It has nothing to do with polytechnics. However, I recall a British politicain once saying that Polytechnics should be centres of relevance (i.e. technolohy) and universities of irrelevance (i.e. pure science): if I find the reference I'll add it. It would be good to get statistics for the drop out rates - but the question is, are they broad across all subjects or only for engineering? Engineering is only one subject among many taught at polytechnics. Indeed, as far as I know, the only subjects never taught at polytechnics but taught at UK universities were medicine and veterinary medicne. Many former-polytechnic students have chips on their shoulders - which is a pity! And of course it would be good to know how employers have discriminated against them: as my decrepid old snobby boss once said, a first class honours degree from a polytechnic is equivalent to a student from Oxford who failed his finals.

Agree the engineering focus (with little referencing) is inappropriate. The reasons for poor interest in engineering (and indeed the wider science and technical fields) is for many and complex reasons. For instance. Poor interest is not limited to the UK or only institutions other than universities. Maths is a fundemental scientific and technical subject and this is often the put-off point for many students who percieve it as abstract, disproportionately difficult o little encouragement at home. Management and progression opportunities in science and technical fields are often percieved as poor comparied to business studies and commerce degrees, but this is not always the case in studies (obviously depends on business types, again complex). Arts and related fields are often percieved as having a quicker payback, indeed those who pay tutition fees these will often be cheaper than that of science and technology.

In summary what I am saying is that this issue is not limited the polytechnic/university divide; its a complex issue (that needs appropriate research and referencing) and is a general education issue rather than limited to a specific institution type or divide. It is not neccessarily appropriate to this article. Djegan 22:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amgi Response to Djegan

I am not really sure what precisely should be changed but you are probably right - this is moving away from the subject. Can you make some suggestions? Off course Polytechnics offered a lot more courses than engineering. This is stated in the article. However I believe the public (masses) associated polytechnics with "technical" education. This is a well know fact in the UK. And a technical education is equated with engineering. And engineering is associated with trade education - again among the general UK public. I do not believe the UK public has disdain for science and engineering. This is too harsh. I have not found evidence of this. It is widely recorded that the public does not understand what engineering is. The word engineering in the UK only is used to cover everything from plumbers to repairmen. And this is far from what engineering actually is. Polytechnics did start out with a focus on science and engineering. This is their roots and can be backed up. The general UK public does not understand the fact that engineering undergrad entrance requires A levels in physics, chemistry, mathematics etc. This is unique to the UK. I know, I have lived in various places around the world and have experienced this. There is also much research in UK literature to support this fact. The IMechE, IEE, ICE have conducted numerous studies on the subject. Off course, universities offer engineering and applied science degrees but this article is about polytechnics. It is not comparing the binary system. It is about stating the facts. I have attended both a Polytechnic (undergrad) and a university (post grad) and there was no difference. I have never heard of employer’s discrimate against Polytechnic grads and I have never seen evidence of this. I agree the issue of a lack of interest in science and engineering is a complex subject and it probably requires it's own article. The reason for mentioning it here is because this relates to image and perception of Polytechnics prior to 1992. The original article stated that the Polytechnics were perceived as ranking below universities. Well why is this - it is nonsense and it is perception. There were no facts to back this up. A professional degree in engineering, law, and architecture were validated by a very rigorous process through the professional institutions and the CNAA. They are still validated by the professional institutions. This makes nonsense of the ranking statement. It had no precise measurement. That is why it is called a perception. And the article attempts to explain the reason for this perception. The validation of degrees at both universities and Polytechnics was a precise measurement and it was a way to maintain standards. So the statement about ranking below was nonsense since there was no hard evidence in the area of engineering, law or architecture, and I am sure other fields as well. It was perception that could not be backed up with facts in these areas. Perhaps one could argue that a BA in history, or English language from a polytechnic was not as good as a university. But this could not be said for a professional degree. This has to be stated because it is a hard fact. How should the article be amended? Go ahead and give it a shot. I await your response. By the way the old snobby boss sounds like a relic from the 18th century. Also "many polytechnic students have chips on their shoulders". There is no evidence to support this, and I have never experienced this. It is a POV that is perception. On reflection I did remove the reference to engineering misunderstanding. You are right, it was getting of track.