|
|
|
|
|
|
by rvba
1480 days ago
|
|
|
It is an interesting question: When we look at the "best" schools really the best since they teach so well?
Or maybe they are the best, since they got a brand early and simply collect the best candidates? Those best candidates would be the best students/more successful in later life even if they went to a mediocre university? Obviously the better universities probably are better at teaching, but I still wonder how much depends on the quality of students that they accept. Also in the absolute top universities, lots of students come from "old" wealth - and are destined to inherit money and positions from their parents. Obviously it doesnt make sense to send a kid to a bad university, because it is probably bad (bad teachers, bad students), but I wonder if those "good" universities are really that good due to own actions. |
|
|
I wasn't taught very much at university. There were a few lectures a week, and a weekly tutorial.
I think there's a difference between the UK and US undergraduate experience: I suspect that US students expect something like school, but better. So you get showbiz professors with charisma. In the UK, at least in research universities, teaching undergraduates is a boring side-job, unless they are showing potential as postgrad students (who can be put to work helping the professor's research). The purpose of a batchelor's degree, then, is to train you to study on your own, which is a prerequisite for postgrad study.
I happen to think that's a good thing; I don't think universities should be providing vocational training. That should be done by another kind of institution. A good batchelor's degree - any good batchelor's degree - is then evidence that you can work and learn under your own steam.
I've never been to university in the USA; I'm guessing, based on how US and UK students describe their experiences, and on the differing styles of US and UK professors on Youtube, TV etc.