Higher (education) Quality (?) Topic:Follow

Lots of debt. I'm not even using my degree for the most part currently.

Not really; I still learned the material. She was just a bit too trusting of her students and had bad eyesight. Most of my HS teachers were very knowledgable, and I learned a great deal from them.

No.


Yes

Not how in it is usually taught.

No.

No.


Business administration and Chemistry.

In my experiences it was quite the opposite. High school was the freedom to do whatever I chose and university has been a limitation. Perhaps it helped that I attended what I thought to be quite a good high school, but I don't believe it to be so.

There are three limiting factors t the higher education system, and two of them are universal. Cost, degree plan, and the way classes are taught. If a class isn't covered by my scholarship, and I don't specifically need it for my degree, then it is not in my options to take it. I can't afford to spend a thousand dollars or more to take a semester of guitar or dance in college like I could do in high school for free. a degree plan is limiting in that if a class is not in my plan then it is really a waste to take it, and I must take certain classes which are a waste for me to take because they are in my degree plan. I was lucky enough that I could complete certain blow off courses in high school or at the community college rather than wasting my time on them at school.

In high school all the classes were free, mostly. This meant the only cost in taking a class was the opportunity cost of not being able to take another class. Because I had only a very core set of requirements to fulfill in high school I was free to pick and choose whatever electives piqued my interest. I don't have this kind of freedom at a university.

The third factor depends a bit on the school, the major, and the professor: it is how the class is taught. In general I find high school classes were either for general education or for babysitting, and babysitting could mostly be avoided by moving into upper level classes. College level course are taught to train you for your intended major. One of my previous college classes last year was entirely on how to use Microsoft word, powerpoint, excel, and access. There was no way to test out of the class, and it was a requirement for my degree plan.Not only was it something I already knew, save for ms access, but it was very specific training for a particular tool. It wasn't conceptual at all, it was an overpriced manual.



I'm not trying to argue that the high school model could work or in any way replace the system we have for higher education. I admit that is probably infeasible, but I do believe there was a great deal more freedom in high school than there is in college.

I thought someone would take it there. >.<

It's a problem I have seen at many schools. Not one that is particularly significant, but still exists.

I was a bit overzealous in my statement. It's not that I don't see any value in the subjects, but that I see no value above par. I don't see those classes as especially important or essential to most everyone's education.

I'm not really certain, but most probably both affected my decision. I've always disliked the school system. I see it as both a path and an obstacle to education.

I'd say I was more pragmatic, but the word appears to be used to name a philosophy very unlike my own. I don't believe I see education as an end.

Would it help if I said that I likely believe most probably everything is a means?

I store my most accurate personal feelings on removable hard drives.

[quote=MakaroMost of my HS teachers were very knowledgable, and I learned a great deal from them.[/quote]

Most of my college professors were more knowledgable then my high school teachers. This does not necessarily translate into actually learning more.

I'd say it means you *can* learn more if you are prepared and work hard and the course content allows it (or the instructor has (a) the inclination and (b) the flexibility to go that way).

I've actually seen research which supports that as the single most effective form of teaching: getting the students to teach one another. The theory is that the students who know will actually learn it better and those who don't know have a better chance of learning from a fellow student then the instructor (for various reasons). The downside is manifold but mostly it is less "fair" in the sense that the teaching student may feel they are working for free and the learners get vary mixed experiences.

Assuming the potential benefits/risks are explained:

What if, in place of a lecture, this was offered: how would you react?

As a second alternative, what if your college required a "class" in which you would tutor (say, one-two hours per week for one semester)?

of course the common scenario there is that one or two people do the work for the entire group.

So the ideal preparation for career life then, you're arguing?

Smartass.

How dare you!


Everyone knows those roles are determined by gender.

Really? Granted, I've never worked in the private sector for a single cooperation long enough to make a real assessment, but my anecdotal experience has been it's determined by primarily two things: Punctuality and blind agreement.

It would seem to be the case that if one shows up on time all the time and blindly agrees with management decisions, they're not required to perform much actual work, if any.