Earlier quoted context omitted.
Back in my days in the university we (all the students) hated mostly the toughest professors. Now, many years later, the only stuff that I still remember well, to a degree that I can go and pass an exam, despite not using much of it in my work, is from the courses of those most hated professors. And now students are much worse, they're expecting a "value for money", they want to be entertained. They do not like being…
> And now students are much worse, they're expecting a "value for money", they want to be entertained. But HN is regularly bombarded with articles about colleges and universities being an over-valued investment. But how can you chain that in the same sentence to a right to be entertained ? You sound like Socrates (or better yet: http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/01/misbehaving-children... )
Would you go to a doctor who skipped a college? Do you want to drive over a bridge designed by a bunch of hipster dropouts? If not, then the higher education is still relevant, and all the hipsters must just shut up.
> But how can you chain that in the same sentence to a right to be entertained ?
I'm quoting one of the student complaints - that a lecturer is not "entertaining enough", and this is not "what they paid their money for".
EDIT: and yes, it's not the students who changed recently, it's the creeping commercialisation of the education system in general. Students are "consumers" now, and this is a new thing indeed. They should not be blamed for such an attitude, of course.