|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 10, 2023 11:37:44 GMT
The underlying problem with the British university system is its lack of selectivity. In the space of little more than a generation we have gone from a highly-selective system in which perhaps 10% of school-leavers attended university to one in which 50% or more do. The number of universities has expanded accordingly. However cognitive abilities amongst would-be undergraduates have not increased, in fact there is a good case for arguing they have diminished over the last 50 years in line with the degradation of standards in the secondary school system. In the United States it is widely recognised that an IQ of at least 115 is necessary to benefit fully from a rigorous course at a selective university but there - as in the UK - that is at least a full standard deviation higher than the median IQ. The truth is that in the UK as well as the US a 'college education' is available to anyone who can pay for it regardless of whether or not they derive any real benefit from attending a university other than getting a deferment from entry into the labour force. I remember similar points on University education being made 40 years ago. One instance stood out which someone posted was about a Top scholar from a top University in America who was checked out some years after leaving Uni. He was found to be floundering in the real world. Which suggested that being good at passing exams is not the same as being an exceptional individual. IMO, people who think that education is an indication of the ability of the individual, is a misplaced concept. Innovation often comes from people who never went to university. Richard Branson, privately educated has said that he did badly at school, but look at what he has achieved. People are more than their academic achievement, nevertheless, if people wish to push their own educational level, then why not let them? One thing even a moderate level of education does is to enable an individual to seek and learn about things that interest them personally. The top mathematician in the UK around the 1970s, spoke about his total lack of interest in Maths while as school. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jan 10, 2023 13:36:08 GMT
It really boils down to a question of what universities are for.
Are they somewhere to park unemployable youth for a few years before releasing them into the labour market?
Are they institutions set up to offer 'fun' subjects to keep people amused?
Are they part of an export 'industry' delivering educational opportunities to foreigners?
Is their role one of preparing our future managerial and intellectual elite for leadership duties?
Or are they none of the above? If not, what are they for? In your view.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 10, 2023 13:37:16 GMT
The underlying problem with the British university system is its lack of selectivity. In the space of little more than a generation we have gone from a highly-selective system in which perhaps 10% of school-leavers attended university to one in which 50% or more do. The number of universities has expanded accordingly. However cognitive abilities amongst would-be undergraduates have not increased, in fact there is a good case for arguing they have diminished over the last 50 years in line with the degradation of standards in the secondary school system. In the United States it is widely recognised that an IQ of at least 115 is necessary to benefit fully from a rigorous course at a selective university but there - as in the UK - that is at least a full standard deviation higher than the median IQ. The truth is that in the UK as well as the US a 'college education' is available to anyone who can pay for it regardless of whether or not they derive any real benefit from attending a university other than getting a deferment from entry into the labour force. I remember similar points on University education being made 40 years ago. One instance stood out which someone posted was about a Top scholar from a top University in America who was checked out some years after leaving Uni. He was found to be floundering in the real world. Which suggested that being good at passing exams is not the same as being an exceptional individual. IMO, people who think that education is an indication of the ability of the individual, is a misplaced concept. Innovation often comes from people who never went to university. Richard Branson, privately educated has said that he did badly at school, but look at what he has achieved. People are more than their academic achievement, nevertheless, if people wish to push their own educational level, then why not let them? One thing even a moderate level of education does is to enable an individual to seek and learn about things that interest them personally. The top mathematician in the UK around the 1970s, spoke about his total lack of interest in Maths while as school. Write to Private Eye and ask them for backdated copies dealing with Beardy's liquidity. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 10, 2023 13:42:15 GMT
It really boils down to a question of what universities are for. Are they somewhere to park unemployable youth for a few years before releasing them into the labour market? Are they institutions set up to offer 'fun' subjects to keep people amused? Are they part of an export 'industry' delivering educational opportunities to foreigners? Is their role one of preparing our future managerial and intellectual elite for leadership duties?Or are they none of the above? If not, what are they for? In your view. The highlighted is closest but not exclusively so, the others definitely are not a worthwhile function. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 10, 2023 17:50:32 GMT
The underlying problem with the British university system is its lack of selectivity. In the space of little more than a generation we have gone from a highly-selective system in which perhaps 10% of school-leavers attended university to one in which 50% or more do. The number of universities has expanded accordingly. However cognitive abilities amongst would-be undergraduates have not increased, in fact there is a good case for arguing they have diminished over the last 50 years in line with the degradation of standards in the secondary school system. In the United States it is widely recognised that an IQ of at least 115 is necessary to benefit fully from a rigorous course at a selective university but there - as in the UK - that is at least a full standard deviation higher than the median IQ. The truth is that in the UK as well as the US a 'college education' is available to anyone who can pay for it regardless of whether or not they derive any real benefit from attending a university other than getting a deferment from entry into the labour force. I remember similar points on University education being made 40 years ago. One instance stood out which someone posted was about a Top scholar from a top University in America who was checked out some years after leaving Uni. He was found to be floundering in the real world. Which suggested that being good at passing exams is not the same as being an exceptional individual. IMO, people who think that education is an indication of the ability of the individual, is a misplaced concept. Innovation often comes from people who never went to university. Richard Branson, privately educated has said that he did badly at school, but look at what he has achieved. People are more than their academic achievement, nevertheless, if people wish to push their own educational level, then why not let them? One thing even a moderate level of education does is to enable an individual to seek and learn about things that interest them personally. The top mathematician in the UK around the 1970s, spoke about his total lack of interest in Maths while as school. What value would you place on the invention of the transistor? Would you value it on how well the inventor did financially? |
|
