[shortrounddev2]

> 2. You are not there to be taught. You are there to learn on your own, near people who will tell you an effective way to get through the syllabus (ie grabbing a text book on your own require huge amounts of effort and is probably impossible in say chemistry or most sciences. This is the other part of the fees - paying for buildings, explosive glowing stuff etc etc

This just sounds like lazy professors trying to shirk the aspects of their jobs that they hate so they can do the parts they like. I don't buy this argument because, in fact, most people who pay lots of money to go to several lectures a week expect instruction. To say that you have to teach yourself is to say there's no point in paying the professor other than the generate research.

> 3. Other students - 50% of the experience of university is meeting people not from your walk of life, getting to work with them, have sex with them etc. see point 1. It’s not about educating one person - it’s about building a new generation

Yes, I think a large factor of why people go to college is because they've been marketed a lifestyle to them by these gigantic franchised institutions. Universities have wormed their way into the American psyche as a necessary stage of (very very late, post-adolescent) development and so students are willing to shell out tens of thousands on what has effectively become an all expenses paid sex resort with occasional and minimally competent instruction. I think anyone who goes to college mostly because they bought into this is a sucker

[lifeisstillgood]

On the second part, as Inunderstand it the Netherlands expects an 18 year old to spend the next five years in some combination of three years education, a years volunteering and a years travelling.

The goal is well rounded citizens not corporate trained drones.

Is it expensive - of course. Is it necessary to educate all your citizens like this? No of course not - just stick the the rich ones, or the ones with certain racial traits or no disabilities … oh sorry sarcasm was turned on

Yes it’s expensive and yes the state should pay. The elite have been attending universities for ever and have worked out a deal till the 1990s where the elite could keep going as long as they paid for the brightest to attend and accepted the less smelly brightest into the elite levels.

However this is falling apart - the actress paying for her daughter to go to IVy league colleges knew, Donald Trump admits it, the whole thing is rigged and you need money to buy the contacts. Honestly I don’t know where I am going with that except to say you cannot fix university without fixing what comes after - business investment shoukd be based not on who your banker knows but …

As for the first part, yeah we could have amazing teachers and amazing researchers and amazing administrators rolled into the same person but, bear with me, it might be viable to have different people do many of those roles.

Look, groking calculus is rarely an issue of how clever the person who explains it is. It’s mostly how hard you bang your head on the desk doing the problems.

Most teaching is making sure you keep banging your head.

Making it entertaining is just tricking kids that the next level will also be fun. It’s only fun if you enjoy not knowing and the process of problem solving.

[shortrounddev2]

> As for the first part, yeah we could have amazing teachers and amazing researchers and amazing administrators rolled into the same person but, bear with me, it might be viable to have different people do many of those roles.

I agree: researchers should not be hired to teaching positions because they are good researchers. Teachers should be hired based on their ability to teach.

I don't mind the idea of teaching yourself; I think education should actually have LESS lecturing because I don't think it's an effective means of knowledge transfer. My problem, though, is that you PAY to be there for the lectures (sometimes specific, world renowned lecturers) and then they can't even be bothered to show up for work. Then they just throw around some bullshit about how it's the student's responsibility to do the work and teach themselves. I would buy this if the student wasn't paying so much. It straight up does not cost that much money to provide a library and resources to a student to teach themself things: local communities do this on a shoestring budget all the time. Colleges cost so much in part because of the salaries of people who don't give a fuck about their jobs and somehow consider it a VIRTUE to not show up for work. College professors are some of the most entitled, lazy pricks I've ever met

[lifeisstillgood]

I don’t disagree - it’s just I don’t think you’re paying for what you think you are paying for.

A world renowned research university- let’s call it Barvard, hires brilliant researchers who invent amazing technologies and win prizes. That’s great. And the richest people on the planet try send their kids there. I mean the small airfield next to Barvard is solid with private Lear jets at every commencement ceremony weekend. And that’s what is being paid for. Some bright kids will get scholarships. But Barvard is only affordable to people who also have Lear jets because people who have Lear jets want their kids to go to university with kids of other people who have Lear jets. So the prices get jacked up so much because there are only so many places.

The point of elite university is to give elites access to each other.

Fund universities as we fund schools. Remove charity status. And require research universities and Ivy League to never allow students from the top 1% of wealth.