11–20 of 99 posts
The idiots do not realise they're paying for a chance to learn, not for a product to be delivered to them no matter what.
Administrators want to grow the school budget and increase prestige for themselves and the university. Professors want to do research and make an impact in their field, and to their peers. Students want to be able to get a job and have an interesting experience.
In theory all three groups should have as a primary goal the expansion of the circle of knowledge [1] at some level. Administrators by providing a space for professors and students to do that, professors by partly focusing on students' needs and partly by having separate research periods and Students by expanding their own circles.
Reality is, it's all about money, just like everything else. Each group is trying to get the most of it so they can do what they want individually. Everyone is a customer in this scenario.
The idiots do not realise they're paying for a chance to learn, not for a product to be delivered to them no matter what.
They are not idiots. If you pay half your annual income, you SHOULD expect to get some damn good service for your money. Schools should be free, but seeing how they're not, I see nothing wrong with students demanding their money's worth, and some slack if they fall behind on classwork. People should read Freakonomics.
They are indeed.
> If you pay half your annual income, you SHOULD expect to get some damn good service for your money.
No. This is a blatant consumerism. It does not matter even a tiny bit how much do you pay - 1/2 of your income, 100x your income, whatever.
> Schools should be free,
Of course, in an ideal world. But we have to deal with what we have and to make sure it's not destroyed beyond any hope.
Do you expect "some damn good service" when you buy a lottery ticket or when you bet all your money on a horse? Will you harass the jokey for not winning that round?
Tuition fees are paid for an access to an infrastructure. That's it. Not for a degree, not for the better grades, not for a "humane" treatment. Just for a chance to learn and nothing else.
On the other hand, I disagree with the sentiment that students feel like they are buying a degree. At least from my perspective, the degree itself is largely meaningless. It's the education piece I'm after. I am buying education via access to a pre-vetted, qualified and educated mentor that I can go to with all questions I have regarding my understandings and misunderstandings. I can do the learning piece myself, but I can't ask YouTube and online course material questions if I don't understand it, or to clarify my understanding of it... and I expect that as long as I meet my obligation to work hard to understand the material you are presenting me with and submit the coursework required for the course, I am indirectly buying that degree - and that withstanding, I expect to get the degree that I not only shed blood, sweat and tears for, but also paid £9,000 for.
As a person, I also demand respect, not because I think the world owes me that, certainly not because I feel like I'm naturally entitled to it, but because I understand just as you do that we all have lives outside of the situation in which we interface. Sometimes those lives get in the way of our best intentions, some days trying to juggle those lives and get to work on time is all but impossible, and just as we are expected to afford respect to those around us, I expect the same affordance, no more, no less. So if my circumstances have prevented me from handing an assignment in on time, I expect some consideration for those circumstances, just as I am expected to afford the professor consideration for not attending class today because their real life prevented them from doing that, and you know what, given that I paid £9,000 to be in that classroom, I do feel like some respect should be given to that.
As a lifelong student, watching the exponential increase in tuition fees and the attitudes of students towards educational systems and vice versa, I find it hard to blame the student. The education system is broken, tuition fees keep going up, the quality of education remains mediocre at best, through no fault of the professors who work hard and get pittance compared to what the university makes off the students. The media constantly bangs the drum of entitlement and consumerism into everyone from an early age; and the media is really just a product of the society that we began building in the 1950's... Guess what? Consequences.
I am not paying for a "chance to learn". I am paying for a self-professed expert in pedagogy, whose has spend devoted their proffesional life to the art of shoving information into arbitrary people's heads. I go to the doctor because I want a professional with knowledge of diseases to fix my cold, not the crystal homeopathic healer that lurks on the street outside my apartment. Teachers are supposed to be experts at…
Moreover, if it were the case that less hand-holding helped produce a more market-valuable graduate, then you would rightly expect this.
A lot of incentives in education are woefully misaligned, in my opinion. And I can't really see any simple obvious fixes, but entitlement to knowledge in the form of understanding on the part of students is not one of them.
As Euclid is to have said, "there is no royal road to geometry".
The idiots do not realise they're paying for a chance to learn, not for a product to be delivered to them no matter what.
I would be happy to sell you a chance to eat, or a chance for medial care, or a chance for housing. Education is as necessary as a public utility. To charge any price for a chance to learn while billing as a product (actually knowing things about the world) is a pure example of fraud.
This is exactly how it works. It's called a "postcode lottery" here.
> Education is as necessary as a public utility
Of course it must be free. But when it's not, you're not paying for a product, you're only paying for a chance to learn.
> actually knowing things about the world
It's 100% a students responsibility to learn. Schools can only provide with an access to an infrastructure (and this is what tuition fees are for) and a little, non-intrusive guidance.
Nobody can force the students to learn anything. Nobody can forcefully stuff the knowledge into them. It just does not work this way, and it does not matter how much you do not like it. It's a direct consequence of the human nature.
And most definitely, a degree is not a "product". It's a luxury to be earned, not something "guaranteed".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are not idiots. If you pay half your annual income, you SHOULD expect to get some damn good service for your money. Schools should be free, but seeing how they're not, I see nothing wrong with students demanding their money's worth, and some slack if they fall behind on classwork. People should read Freakonomics.
> They are not idiots. They are indeed. > If you pay half your annual income, you SHOULD expect to get some damn good service for your money. No. This is a blatant consumerism. It does not matter even a tiny bit how much do you pay - 1/2 of your income, 100x your income, whatever. > Schools should be free, Of course, in an ideal world. But we have to deal with what we have and to make sure it's not destroyed beyond a…
> They are indeed.
This is blatant ignorance.
The idiots do not realise they're paying for a chance to learn, not for a product to be delivered to them no matter what.
College has become a barrier to entry to the job market, and when a system is set up where someone's performance on (sometimes quite arbitrary) classes impacts their ability to get a job, those people aren't going to behave like model students, they're going to optimize for a high grade. I'm frankly quite surprised that this academician author can't understand this.
I am not paying for a "chance to learn". I am paying for a self-professed expert in pedagogy, whose has spend devoted their proffesional life to the art of shoving information into arbitrary people's heads. I go to the doctor because I want a professional with knowledge of diseases to fix my cold, not the crystal homeopathic healer that lurks on the street outside my apartment. Teachers are supposed to be experts at…
Teaching at universities is virtually never their sole function, and rarely the majority of their function. At UK universities most such staff take the job for research and have to teach as a condition of that job.
It's true that university staff vary in their commitment to teaching and I can remember many who felt that teaching was beneath them and a distraction from what they actually want to do. Unfortunately, this is the nature of academics, unless you have distinct research and teaching roles, this won't change (and that's another endless discussion).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are not idiots. If you pay half your annual income, you SHOULD expect to get some damn good service for your money. Schools should be free, but seeing how they're not, I see nothing wrong with students demanding their money's worth, and some slack if they fall behind on classwork. People should read Freakonomics.
> They are not idiots. They are indeed. > If you pay half your annual income, you SHOULD expect to get some damn good service for your money. No. This is a blatant consumerism. It does not matter even a tiny bit how much do you pay - 1/2 of your income, 100x your income, whatever. > Schools should be free, Of course, in an ideal world. But we have to deal with what we have and to make sure it's not destroyed beyond a…
Just because you pay money for something does not mean you can invoke the specter of consumerism and then proceed to shame it. You need water, no doubt about it. Is it evil when you pay for clean water?