Re: [TCS] Why is university bad?
Matjaž Leonardis
On Sep 21, 2011, at 12:54 PM, Alan Forrester wrote:
That's not realistic because the internet and libraries exist and are better. It's never plausibly a good option for learn thing things. It is arguably a good option if one has goals other than learning, e.g. to get credentials to gain access to jobs with irrational hiring criteria. (But even so: A) that's a bad way to use your life B) all those jobs are in fact possible to get via other, better ways)
> Universities endorse the idea that learning and life in general is
> difficult and boring.
>
> Universities take attendance in some classes and punish people who
> don't turn up with lower scores or expulsion.
>
> Having said all this, it may be the case that university is the best
> available option for learning some things.
Why are the Internet and libraries always better?
Some people might get a free ride in terms of money, without putting much work into it.
Universities don't have a good explicit educational theory, but they might have a reasonably good inexplicit one.
--
Matjaž Leonardis
Michael Smithson
2011/9/21 Elliot Temple <cu...@curi.us>
On Sep 21, 2011, at 12:54 PM, Alan Forrester wrote:
That's not realistic because the internet and libraries exist and are better. It's never plausibly a good option for learn thing things. It is arguably a good option if one has goals other than learning, e.g. to get credentials to gain access to jobs with irrational hiring criteria. (But even so: A) that's a bad way to use your life B) all those jobs are in fact possible to get via other, better ways)
> Universities endorse the idea that learning and life in general is
> difficult and boring.
>
> Universities take attendance in some classes and punish people who
> don't turn up with lower scores or expulsion.
>
> Having said all this, it may be the case that university is the best
> available option for learning some things.
Why are the Internet and libraries always better?
Some people might get a free ride in terms of money, without putting much work into it.
Universities don't have a good explicit educational theory, but they might have a reasonably good inexplicit one.
Joe Markham
Firstly the state element, both financially and from the way this influences the curriculum. State funding for education in this regard is automatically immoral and unwise for standards. Equally state funding means that most academics will naturally lean towards teaching those subjects that the state considers most valuable. There is almost no mention of Friedman or Hayek in economics classes for instance, and try mentioning Rand in a philosophy class and you'll be laughed out of the room. This is fairly easily countered however, private universities could, by and large, solve this.
Secondly, academics, for some reason, seem to be primarily left-leaning anyway. I don't know if this is because those on the right tend to go off into more practical professions or don't go to university at all or because young people tend towards the left or because those who succeed in academia, particularly in the arts, are generally those who best support what has unofficially become 'the party line'. Now most lecturers will have a bias of some sort, but such a left-leaning bias will naturally distort any hope of real educational opportunity.
Thirdly, universities in my experience teach people primarily what, now how, to think. There is little to no encouragement of critical thinking. Far from the movie image of small tutorial groups full of disagreement, university is basically a classroom in which things are told to you and you take notes, which is a terrible way of learning.
Fourthly, the university is primarily a business, thus they desire to move up the rankings by getting the best grades, thus the focus, much like school, is on the best grades rather than learning independently.
Overall however, I think university is a good thing in principle, mainly because they offer opportunities to meet people on a regular basis who study different disciplines, they allow for access to resources otherwise not widely available, they allow employers at least a basic grasp of how compotent the applicant they have is at writing reports or whatever else is required (which would be difficult, though not impossible, to determine another way) and they bring people into contact with experts in the discipline that may otherwise not have opportunity to address such a vast amount of people on a regular basis.
Elliot Temple
On Nov 13, 2011, at 3:29 PM, Joe Markham wrote:
> University is bad for a few major reasons, most of which have already been
> expressed in some way or other.
>
> Firstly the state element, both financially and from the way this
> influences the curriculum. State funding for education in this regard is
> automatically immoral and unwise for standards. Equally state funding means
> that most academics will naturally lean towards teaching those subjects
> that the state considers most valuable. There is almost no mention of
> Friedman or Hayek in economics classes for instance, and try mentioning
> Rand in a philosophy class and you'll be laughed out of the room. This is
> fairly easily countered however, private universities could, by and large,
> solve this.
I'm not sure it'd be that easy. If it were, why hasn't it been done yet?
One issue is that universities require a good reputation for the credentials they offer to be valuable. So if they were to teach Rand or creationism, they'd have problems on that front.
> Secondly, academics, for some reason, seem to be primarily left-leaning
> anyway. I don't know if this is because those on the right tend to go off
> into more practical professions or don't go to university at all or because
> young people tend towards the left or because those who succeed in
> academia, particularly in the arts, are generally those who best support
> what has unofficially become 'the party line'. Now most lecturers will have
> a bias of some sort, but such a left-leaning bias will naturally distort
> any hope of real educational opportunity.
There's lots of factors including those. Another is that the current conception of an "intellectual", and a university, is inherently left-biased: it *means* someone who is too revolutionary in their epistemology, someone too willing to worship whatever seems to be "reason", who will teach "critical thinking skills" to students. People with other perspectives are given labels like "reactionary" and not deemed very suitable to educate because they are believed to teach "prejudice" instead of "critical thinking".
Rationalism is deemed intelligent and modern, and reason the ultimate authority. And the current left is all about (coercive) authority.
> Thirdly, universities in my experience teach people primarily what, now
> how, to think. There is little to no encouragement of critical thinking.
> Far from the movie image of small tutorial groups full of disagreement,
> university is basically a classroom in which things are told to you and you
> take notes, which is a terrible way of learning.
I agree universities don't actually promote critical thinking well. It's more about image than actions. Turns out, it's actually kind of inconvenient for authorities to allow questions and dissent.
> Fourthly, the university is primarily a business, thus they desire to move
> up the rankings by getting the best grades, thus the focus, much like
> school, is on the best grades rather than learning independently.
>
> Overall however, I think university is a good thing in principle, mainly
> because they offer opportunities to meet people on a regular basis who
> study different disciplines, they allow for access to resources otherwise
> not widely available, they allow employers at least a basic grasp of how
> compotent the applicant they have is at writing reports or whatever else is
> required (which would be difficult, though not impossible, to determine
> another way) and they bring people into contact with experts in the
> discipline that may otherwise not have opportunity to address such a vast
> amount of people on a regular basis.
I don't think these merits have much meaning. If we didn't have universities, we'd have something else. Perhaps it'd do these things better.
-- Elliot Temple
http://curi.us/
Joe Markham
Second point, basically agree.
Third point, ditto.
Fourth point, what else would we have? It would have to be a place with academics willing to discuss issues on a regular basis, where work can be overseen and helped along, which has all kinds of resources from obscure academic texts to high-level scientific equipment, which you would attend on a regular basis and which was a centre designed to foster learning. If you don't have these, I think we lose out in a big way, if we have something that provides these, surely it would just be a tweaked idea of university still?
Joe Markham
The only real option is to create private universities with a more open system. You pay a set amount and can attend any lecturers whenever you like. Assuming different companies had their own internal examinations in place so grades were irrelevant from uni, this would be a reasonable idea. It would likely only be used by the very wealthy however and thus they would be unlikely to flourish.
Elliot Temple
On Nov 13, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Joe Markham wrote:
> Fourth point, what else would we have? It would have to be a place with
> academics willing to discuss issues on a regular basis, where work can be
> overseen and helped along, which has all kinds of resources from obscure
> academic texts to high-level scientific equipment, which you would attend
> on a regular basis and which was a centre designed to foster learning. If
> you don't have these, I think we lose out in a big way, if we have
> something that provides these, surely it would just be a tweaked idea of
> university still?
I don't think all of those things need to be provided in the same place, at the same time, from a single organization that charges a single price for access to the whole bundle.
I don't see the need, for example, that most people attend on a regular basis. Why can't people go irregularly?
Obscure texts are already available from resources like Amazon, Google books, and non-university libraries, and those could expand to meet increased demand without university libraries.
I don't think academics in general are actually willing to discuss many issues with students on a regular basis. They would run out of time. This may be obscured by the disinterest in discussion of most students. There are more efficient alternative models which are superior most of the time (e.g. video recordings of discussions or lectures), with one-one discussion being the expensive option to use the minority of the time.
Also, that list does not cover all the important aspects of university. E.g. it makes no mention of grades, homework, credentials, curriculums, majors, prerequisites, "general education requirements" or satisfying parents. If you removed these things that weren't on your list, you'd get something different than current universities.
-- Elliot Temple
http://fallibleideas.com/
Francis Wolfe
Francis Wolfe
Elliot Temple
whatever you said, you said it unclearly.
and posted HTML. looked how utterly fucked the quoting is above. that's your fault. don't post that way again.
-- Elliot Temple
http://elliottemple.com/