Jump to content

What is wrong with universities today?


tangerinedream

Recommended Posts

That would be great Del, if everybody who followed that road got the money. Its becoming too hard for some people to get the money theyre promised. The National Guard more so than the Army are shankin people.

They are. I know of a few people who've been getting nothing but run-around when it comes to their G.I. Bill. :angry:

America screws their vets from behind. They get them to sign up for service, give them good benefits and all that jazz, but when it comes to taking care of them post-service? Forget it. <_<

Look at the V.A. healthcare system. I seriously hope that I always have a good healthcare system so Dave won't be at the mercy of the V.A.

Look at retirement pensions. Those are going down the tubes.

Look at what the miltary's been doing to their injured and deceased service men and women. I saw on the news a few days ago an article about a man that was billed thousands of dollars for his life-saving medical care after he got bombed by a roadside explosive in Iraq or Kuwait.

Yeah--we need to work on our V.A. system, too. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm French and I dunno if you guys know but there has been a student strike (yeah I know...) for weeks now...I haven't been to class in over 2 weeks. I have (supposedly) exams soon. The problem in France with universities is that when you graduate from french universities you can't find a job. A lot of universities don't have enough money. The teachers are shit...and well, the students are just as lazy as they come... :angry:

The Bulle, I have heard and followed the news stories about the student strikes in France. Do you have a strong tenure system in France? In other words, once faculty are hired are they tenured and pretty much in their positions until they die? The only information I have about the strikes is through the media so I would love to read about your experiences as a student.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are. I know of a few people who've been getting nothing but run-around when it comes to their G.I. Bill. :angry:

America screws their vets from behind. They get them to sign up for service, give them good benefits and all that jazz, but when it comes to taking care of them post-service? Forget it. <_<

Look at the V.A. healthcare system. I seriously hope that I always have a good healthcare system so Dave won't be at the mercy of the V.A.

Look at retirement pensions. Those are going down the tubes.

Look at what the miltary's been doing to their injured and deceased service men and women. I saw on the news a few days ago an article about a man that was billed thousands of dollars for his life-saving medical care after he got bombed by a roadside explosive in Iraq or Kuwait.

Yeah--we need to work on our V.A. system, too. <_<

Does the VA still have problems?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bulle, I have heard and followed the news stories about the student strikes in France. Do you have a strong tenure system in France? In other words, once faculty are hired are they tenured and pretty much in their positions until they die? The only information I have about the strikes is through the media so I would love to read about your experiences as a student.

well, the thing is that in France universities are public and are financed by the government. Sarkozy's new law, is changing that. He wants universities to try and find their own funds. He wants universities to become gradually private. The problem is that this means that universities in France won't be equal anymore! There will be a 'classification' of universities. People are afraid that small universities (like mine) will be considered shitty and will eventually disappear. In France we already have huge unemployment problems. Its more and more difficult to get a job. A lot of young people are unemployed eventhough they have a masters degree...With this new law, it'll be worse. People from rich universities (likely to be universities from big cities like Paris, Lilles, Marseille, Lyon...) will have more opportunities than people who graduated from a small university. That's why students are on strike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, the thing is that in France universities are public and are financed by the government. Sarkozy's new law, is changing that. He wants universities to try and find their own funds. He wants universities to become gradually private. The problem is that this means that universities in France won't be equal anymore! There will be a 'classification' of universities. People are afraid that small universities (like mine) will be considered shitty and will eventually disappear. In France we already have huge unemployment problems. Its more and more difficult to get a job. A lot of young people are unemployed eventhough they have a masters degree...With this new law, it'll be worse. People from rich universities (likely to be universities from big cities like Paris, Lilles, Marseille, Lyon...) will have more opportunities than people who graduated from a small university. That's why students are on strike.

Thanks for describing it. It's interesting for me to read a student's perspective. It sounds like Sarkozy is trying to move toward a system that is closer to the one that we have here in the U.S. Most people don't like to admit it, but our universities and colleges are all ranked here. Our system isn't as rigid though - it is possible to go from a "shitty" or lower tier school and do well professionally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear you re: rise in adjuncts, which mirrors the increase in contract hires in the corporate world. An increase in adjunct positions means a decrease in tenure-track positions. But does an increase in adjunct positions mean that the tenure system itself is in jeopardy? Or is it just that access TO the system is more restricted now?

It just makes access to the system more restricted. The fact of the matter is that those of us who struggle along as lecturers in this country are in danger of becoming a permanent underclass, too busy taching far too many classes just to keep body and soul together, and too busy to get our own work done (which, as much as I enjoy teaching, is the primary reason that I am an academic). The tenure system, which in all universities that I've ever studied or worked in doesn't just mean you get to do what you want if you want raises and such, ensures that professors have enough time to teach and do their own research. Passionate engagement in research makes one a good teacher, so without a system that makes time for this, students suffer as well. We're not paid all that much in the humanities and tenure is one of the few things that helps us keep it all together. You can't really have responsible teaching, research, or an intellectually alive culture without it (these days--in times past, other forms of patronage were available), and I personally think that intellectual inquiry is fundamental to the health of any nation. And Del, your militarism and mean libertarianism really make me unproud to be an American.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think tenure is absolutely vital to issues of academic freedom. Sure, there are ways of nudging out tenured faculty, but it still makes it much more difficult for the administration to lean on them and tell them what they can and can't teach. And that's particularly important in the humanities, where you run into all sorts of censorship issues--one person's obscene literature is someone else's experimental fiction. It also means that at least some members of a department can be upfront about real issues that affect faculty--I'm lucky enough to have tenure, sorry Del, and I'm always having to speak up about this and that because my younger colleagues don't want to risk offending the administration. I don't know anyone who has tenure who doesn't continue to earn it--though I'll grant such people do exist at some schools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ban alcohol consumption and enforce it strictly.

:angry:

I don't know how that would work. I've been on "dry" campuses but that never stopped student consumption. They always found ways to sneak it in and the R.A.s seem to look the other way. In some ways, I think that the fact that it was prohibited only fueled the excitement when the kids got drunk. I was an undergrad in NY during the era of the draconian "Rockefeller drug laws" and drugs were rampant on campus. When the maids came in to clean, they would ignore the paraphernalia strewn about the rooms. I do have to say that I always kicked kids who were obviously stoned or drunk right out of my classroom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think tenure is absolutely vital to issues of academic freedom. Sure, there are ways of nudging out tenured faculty, but it still makes it much more difficult for the administration to lean on them and tell them what they can and can't teach. And that's particularly important in the humanities, where you run into all sorts of censorship issues--one person's obscene literature is someone else's experimental fiction. It also means that at least some members of a department can be upfront about real issues that affect faculty--I'm lucky enough to have tenure, sorry Del, and I'm always having to speak up about this and that because my younger colleagues don't want to risk offending the administration. I don't know anyone who has tenure who doesn't continue to earn it--though I'll grant such people do exist at some schools.

I completely agree with everything you say here, Aqua, and have certainly seen the husband (who has tenure) have to speak up when his junior colleagues felt they couldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for describing it. It's interesting for me to read a student's perspective. It sounds like Sarkozy is trying to move toward a system that is closer to the one that we have here in the U.S. Most people don't like to admit it, but our universities and colleges are all ranked here. Our system isn't as rigid though - it is possible to go from a "shitty" or lower tier school and do well professionally.

Yeah, in France its really hard to find a job. We have what we call "Les Grandes Ecoles" (private posh universities) and when you come from one, you get all the jobs you want. Another problem is the fact that our population is getting older! We have more and more old people, they work longer which means less jobs for young people. Because of that, a lot of students decide to stay at the university as long as they can but the problem with that is that : the more you study, the more you're qualified, the more the employers must pay you! So a lot of employers in France, would rather employ someone less qualified but who'll cost less. Its a vicious circle! France is in a really bad place right now. Can't wait to leave this country. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, the thing is that in France universities are public and are financed by the government. Sarkozy's new law, is changing that. He wants universities to try and find their own funds. He wants universities to become gradually private. The problem is that this means that universities in France won't be equal anymore! There will be a 'classification' of universities. People are afraid that small universities (like mine) will be considered shitty and will eventually disappear. In France we already have huge unemployment problems. Its more and more difficult to get a job. A lot of young people are unemployed eventhough they have a masters degree...With this new law, it'll be worse. People from rich universities (likely to be universities from big cities like Paris, Lilles, Marseille, Lyon...) will have more opportunities than people who graduated from a small university. That's why students are on strike.

I hear you. The problem is that this is rather a vicious circle, isn't it. You said in the previous post that the universities in France don't have enough money. I think that's actually what Sarkozy wants to change. I'm not a fan of private education, but I think it's good for universities to try to find also another ways to get the money. That, however, definitely doesn't mean that they should become completely private. A rich, pseudo-prestigious university that educates those who can afford it, instead of the talented ones, is another nightmarish extreme (IMO).

Universities here already are unequal (well, thinking about it...they've probably always been), but it rather a matter of the quality of education. The most presitigious state schools are valued much more that private ones - the private education here is still considered to be for those who didn't get accepted to any public school but can afford to pay for this alternative. That's probably a bit exaggerated, but it still works this way in most cases. I've often complained about the high demands the best universities here have. It's damn hard to get accepted, and even then you can't be sure whether you'll finish the school or not. The whole last year, it felt as if I were playing some lottery. The head of the department had decided to accept more people that what the actuall capacity allows because the more first years they have, the higher state's grants are. The design is to get rid of as many students as possible during the first year (because once you have the money, you don't need them anymore) so that at last, only the very best ones remain. Some of the tests and exams we took were intentionally very hard in order to filter the 'scum'. <_< Very stupid, if you ask me; it robs people of valuable years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear you. The problem is that this is rather a vicious circle, isn't it. You said in the previous post that the universities in France don't have enough money. I think that's actually what Sarkozy wants to change. I'm not a fan of private education, but I think it's good for universities to try to find also another ways to get the money. That, however, definitely doesn't mean that they should become completely private. A rich, pseudo-prestigious university that educates those who can afford it, instead of the talented ones, is another nightmarish extreme (IMO).

Universities here already are unequal (well, thinking about it...they've probably always been), but it rather a matter of the quality of education. The most presitigious state schools are valued much more that private ones - the private education here is still considered to be for those who didn't get accepted to any public school but can afford to pay for this alternative. That's probably a bit exaggerated, but it still works this way in most cases. I've often complained about the high demands the best universities here have. It's damn hard to get accepted, and even then you can't be sure whether you'll finish the school or not. The whole last year, it felt as if I were playing some lottery. The head of the department had decided to accept more people that what the actuall capacity allows because the more first years they have, the higher state's grants are. The design is to get rid of as many students as possible during the first year (because once you have the money, you don't need them anymore) so that at last, only the very best ones remain. Some of the tests and exams we took were intentionally very hard in order to filter the 'scum'. <_< Very stupid, if you ask me; it robs people of valuable years.

It is, very stupid. But it was like that my first year of university, too--I guess as long as they get away with it, things will never change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is, very stupid. But it was like that my first year of university, too--I guess as long as they get away with it, things will never change.

That's probably the only big objection I have right at the moment. I can't help to think that's it a bit unfair. Not only you need to exert more effort in order to get accepted than people from smaller universities, but then you must work three times as hard if you want to stay there. While less talented people (*gasp* I said that) from less prestigious schools happily continue in their studies, you need to fear every stupid test that is designated to get rid of a number of your schoolmates, including you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank God we don't have those kinds of tests. At my school, you can be kicked out if you don't hit a certain GPA, but you're not dependant on relative scores; you just have to pass a particular amount of classes, (which I haven't had any issued with).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank God we don't have those kinds of tests. At my school, you can be kicked out if you don't hit a certain GPA, but you're not dependant on relative scores; you just have to pass a particular amount of classes, (which I haven't had any issued with).

The system here is this:

You get a certain number of credits for passing each subject. In our first year, we had to obtain 60 credits to be able to continue, 45 of which were from compulsory subjects. We had to get all of these 45 credits, which meant that we had to pass all the compulsory subjects. The actual marks/grades weren't as important as this, important was whether it was a pass or not (there were moment when many people were very grateful for a C). Not here's the problem (I'll give an example): in order to get credits for Elizabethan Literature, we had to write an in-class essay, write another one at home, and finally pass a test. If you failed in one of these (there was one resit for the test, quite a lot of people didn't pass even that one), it meant that you didn't get the credits....and that means only one thing, no matter how great your results in the other subjects are. <_< Many tests we took were deliberately hard to pass, one of our professors was even so kind as to tell us what the whole purpose of it was.

Ok, end of rant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I've loved darn near every class I've taken so far, but that's mostly because they were all for my major, so of course they were interesting. I went to community college before transferring to a university, so I took all of my general ed. classes there. Of course, I do have one professor right now to whom I'd like to give a piece of my mind (she assigns a mountain of reading, but then our pointless class presentations take up half the class or more, so she gives these half-assed brief overviews of all that reading we did, but I digress), but overall, I've had a really positive experience.

As a shy person, I don't mind large class sizes - it means I don't have to participate! I realize that maybe that's not maximizing my learning, but I seem to get along just fine without having to say something every class. Also, here the REALLY large classes, like the freshman/sophomore level British Literature class, for example, have the regular lecture two or three times a week, but then once a week the class meets in smaller groups for discussion, which I think is a really good idea.

My main problem with schools is the administration. Teachers should be there to TEACH, not to deal with the political bullshit that goes on behind the scenes. It's ridiculous, and the stuff that goes on is sooo fucking petty. I'm not actually talking about the college I go to, either - I probably know the least about it (they probably have the best press-handling people), but I read in the newspaper about stuff going on at just about every local institution. They sound like a bunch of third graders, frankly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't understand how so many professors can be so brilliant and also so relentlessly petty and juvenile. How is it possible for me to respect so highly people's scholarship, yet absolutely revile their personal and non-scholarly professional conduct?

That question constantly nags at me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how that would work. I've been on "dry" campuses but that never stopped student consumption. They always found ways to sneak it in and the R.A.s seem to look the other way. In some ways, I think that the fact that it was prohibited only fueled the excitement when the kids got drunk. I was an undergrad in NY during the era of the draconian "Rockefeller drug laws" and drugs were rampant on campus. When the maids came in to clean, they would ignore the paraphernalia strewn about the rooms. I do have to say that I always kicked kids who were obviously stoned or drunk right out of my classroom.

Spring Break

Now there's some of our nation's finest minds at work.

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest housesoftheholy
I still don't understand how so many professors can be so brilliant and also so relentlessly petty and juvenile. How is it possible for me to respect so highly people's scholarship, yet absolutely revile their personal and non-scholarly professional conduct?

That question constantly nags at me.

It is difficult to picture what society considers our most intellectually elite and progressive minds with seemingly lesser faults, but it all boils down to being quirky (and human). The picture of a Mr. Chips type character sitting by an ornate fireplace drinking dry sherry and discussing worldly issues amongst his colleagues is quite unrealistic. I've heard from a couple of sources that professors are just as cliquish and backstabbing towards one another; politics runs rampant in who's favored over the other. The process of getting your PhD may have the air of maturity, but it's not quite the "Chicken Soup for the Soul" we make it out to be. Plus, most profs are a bit off their rockers (hey, I plan on becoming a professor and you need not look further than me to assert we are indeed a wacky bunch). :D

Otherwise, I have a few qualms with my own university, even though I love being here:

-Cost. Penn State University is one of the most expensive, if not the most expensive, public universities in the country. While there are many fine academic programs, offerings, and facilities here at main campus, I often wondering how much of it is squandered into athletics (especially football) considering our shockingly massive endowment too. Personally, cost isn't a problem for me, as my parents are paying for my undergraduate degree and everything else college-related, but Penn State is absolutely awful when it comes to awarding scholarships or aid to students in need.

-The facade of a strictly academic institution. Colleges and universities are businesses. They seek to make a profit. They seek to make a name for their products and offerings. Unfortunately, higher education is not the multi-faceted forum that only exists to enlighten, educate, and develop its students. They have highly vested interest in being profitable too. While this may seem obvious enough, the dark side comes through when students aren't always placed first or you figure out the football coach is paid millions of dollars (though luckily Penn Staters now know Joe Paterno's base salary is only $500,000 something).

-Homogeneity and "worldly"/cultured students. So many Ugg boots/North Face fleeces/Spandex tights, so little ammunition. So many ignorant, debate-team-unworthy opinions, so few "donate your body to science!" programs. This is reflected in the student newspaper, which is read by nearly all of our students (98% of us and I'm guessing that at least covers the 42,000 kids at University Park) has the poorest and the most backwards ethics code I've ever seen implemented upon its reporters and columnists. Plus, it's shitty journalism hidden under seemingly decent formatting. They publish the most inane and bogus "studies" and simply dumbass articles with no insight or intelligent conclusion . I could really sack the Opinions page columnists too, Jeeeesus. This is why other schools will require its undergraduate applicants to write personal essays about your callings and goals in life so you are actually well-rounded before you get to college!

In spite of those naggings, I love my school and the University Creamery. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...