US Colleges: Is the Campus Culture Stifling Intellectual Growth?

[deRham]

For that to work, standards would have to be kept at a high level everywhere.

Below a certain level, US colleges and universities are competing for students, not the other way around.

This certainly does not have to happen though. I agree with your reasoning as to why things are the way they are (once a few people in charge of education are willing to make things somewhat easier and flowery, it doesn't matter how much the others raise the standards - a lot of people will take the easy option).

What I specifically don't think is true is that a huge societal pressure to attend college alone needing to imply dumbed down standards. There must *also* be a culture/attitude in that society that "everyone deserves a college degree" which is subtly different from saying there is pressure to get a college degree. It can be easy to think one of these implies the other. One could also conceive of a pressure whereby if you can't do basic calculus by the time you exit college at age 22 or so, you're considered stupid.

It's very much a cultural thing as to whether when a parent hears that the son got a bad grade, he/she goes after the teacher or goes after the son.

 

[camel_jockey]

The US has a huge variation, the top 40 universities are excellent. Then there are maybe 40 more universities which are "OK"... but thereafter the situation decreases very, very rapidly. I would rather go to a school with poor, stressed out Indian students who work very hard and have high expectations on them, than go to State University of Nowhere. Facilties is sometimes second to working/studying environment.

 

[twofish-quant]

The US has a huge variation, the top 40 universities are excellent. Then there are maybe 40 more universities which are "OK"... but thereafter the situation decreases very, very rapidly

I don't think this is true at all. One good thing about the US system is that it has a very deep bench. There are several thousand colleges and universities in the US. Most are good, and I don't know of any regionally accredited institution which I would consider incompetent.

I don't think that there really is a huge variation in the quality of undergraduate physics education in the United States.

 

[twofish-quant]

A big problem is an assumption that *most* students initially make -- thinking that meeting the minimum requirements for a major will prepare them for their future (be it direct employment or graduate school then employment).

Also curiously there are numerous examples of people that aren't particularly good at passing tests, but are really good once they get out into the "real world."

A B-student with internship experience is going to be in a lot better shape looking for work than a straight-A student with no work experience at all. This also applies at higher levels. There is this other thread where I mentioned that a Ph.D. in physics would have a more attractive resume if they worked for six months flipping burgers at Burger King than if they got another masters degree.

Letting students know about this is part of career services and should be part of the educational experience.

If one is meeting the minimum requirements for the degree (especially with the minimum grades), one is merely a "revenue unit" for the "university as a business" (or as two-fish notes, enrolled in "adult daycare").

"Adult daycare" is very important. One thing about college is that it's a place that you can make serious personal mistakes without having serious long term consequences. In college, you can drink too much and sleep with the wrong people, and then learn why you shouldn't drink too much and sleep with the wrong people.

One of the more important lessons I learned in college was "eat your vegetables" and "grades aren't that important."

Students at ALL levels need to be thinking about this (from probably about 3rd to 5th grade in primary/elementary school... when tracking first starts) through the graduate/PhD level.

But it's a losing game. What happens with a lot of high performing students is that their entire life has been able pleasing other people, but this pretty quickly stops working after a while.

 

[Mépris]

But it's a losing game. What happens with a lot of high performing students is that their entire life has been able pleasing other people, but this pretty quickly stops working after a while.

Pleasing others is better than doing nothing at all. I know a few hundred kids who have no clue as to what would please *them*. A lot of this is because most don't have the time to think deeply about themselves - kids are in school from 8 to 5. (of course, there's a few breaks in between)

Everybody in A-Level Math (some trig, linear algebra, calculus, complex numbers, combinatorics, normal distribution, etc), that I have met are only in the class because they're expected to be, with a few exceptions who are doing the math because a) they like it and/or b) they *want* to get into some kind of engineering. The vast majority though, are zombies plugging in values into equations like robots. There is a "show me how to get the A+s" mentality which is very detrimental to the growth of every student. After 13 years of schooling, you end up not learning too much.

I'm not sure what's wrong exactly or at what point in time this current model became obsolete but I've had such a horrible experience out of it that I *want* to figure out how to change it. One day...

 

[mathwonk]

I believe rants like this belong in the general discussion thread . i.e. no one is either seeking or receiving any academic guidance here.

 

[Evo]

This thread is serving no purpose.