[iridium]

Even though this incident sounds more personal than idealistic, it keeps bringing back up the question of the purpose of universities.

I am okay with universities being a medium of education, where one can take any courses they want, and passing and failing is irrelevant (MOOCs?)

I am okay with universities being a place to enjoy four years of camaraderie and self exploration before committing to life or career goals.

I am okay with universities being a stamp of selection, i.e you were good enough to get into harvard so you must be smart.

However, universities try to be all three and fail miserably at all of them, while leaving students in a large debt that most are unable to reconcile with what they got out of it, along with a life-long 'average gpa' that barely reflects abilities.

[probably_wrong]

I think you are confusing "universities" with "USA universities", specially when it comes to debt and GPA.

[dunmalg]

>I think you are confusing "universities" with "USA universities"

When the thread topic title starts with "Texas College Professor" on a US hosted web site, in English, not appending "in the USA" to every single assertion is not unreasonable.

[nailer]

Most USA-people do this, and they're aware of it: when they talk about 'universities', or '[some class of] people', or 'VC' or whatever else. I think the reasons they do it are a combination of efficiency and a feeling that the rest of the world isn't always necessary to the discussion.

Those of us outside the US may feel it's naive, but it's unlikely they'll change. The simplest thing for us to do is to assume they always mean USA-[topic].

[jklein11]

Are you implying that there is anywhere other than the USA?

[iridium]

I'll agree on the debt side. The grade issue is infinitely worse in a lot of competitive cultures.

Even if you take the money factor away, Have non-US universities really figured out higher education? Most of them tend to either be a lot more rigid in structure, or they copy from the US system.

[arethuza]

Personally, I'm much happier I went to a UK university where the final degree "class" was based almost entirely on what you did in the final year (I think it was 80% fourth year and 20% third) as I was a terrible student in the first year, average in the second and did really well in the final two years and got a first.

Not saying that this approach is "better" - just that it suited me!

[rmc]

Or even "one can take any courses they want"

[StillBored]

The idea that a student can be educated in 4 years is a factory mentality. It completely ignores people who want the education but are unable to commit the required time in a given semester (aka people with jobs instead of loans). It also ignores the fact that a pretty high percentage (based on people I knew in college) didn't really know what they should major in immediately. Changing majors three years in, is a good way to extend 4 years into 5. Or for that matter, four years of taking classes in one major provides a similar level of competence to four years of another major. It also assumes that everyone learns at the same rate, maybe some people take a little longer in $SUBJECT does that make them inferior?

This whole graduate in 4 years idea, is primarily driven by the college rankings. The lack of a good metric for post college "success" or information learned, means the rankings rely on feel good metrics like the average number of years to graduation.