Walter Bright wrote:
> dsimcha wrote:
>> == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound1@digitalmars.com)'s article
>>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>> If there's one thing my
>>>> school experience taught me, it's that teachers are only interested in
>>>> focusing on the low-to-mid-range students.
>>> That wasn't my college experience at all (Caltech). I was a
>>> low-to-mid-range student there
>>
>> ...Which kind of proves the point that the way knowledge/learning in college is
>> measured is pretty flawed in that it doesn't predict who will be successful
>> afterword.  I just finished undergrad a couple years ago and I feel that the kinds
>> of multiple choice exams you get in huge lecture-based classes are good at testing
>> rote memorization and superficial understanding and the ability to get inside the
>> professor's head, where as what's important is the ability to take your knowledge
>> and apply it to something useful or use it to create more knowledge.
> 
> 
> Multiple choice exams were against the rules at Caltech (even though we did have a few huge lecture-based classes).
> 
> I'll still hold forth, however, that you're going to get out of it what you are willing to put into it. If you're only going to target getting a degree, I wouldn't hire you. If you are in college to get the most out of the experience (and there are huge opportunities for that in college), your results will be far better.
> 
> 90% of the classes I took I selected because they interested me and I thought they were important. I made sure I understood front to back every single homework problem, and every exam problem I got wrong. I also paid for most of it out of a part time and summer job, and I'm sure that paying the tuition bills influenced my attitude as well <g>. I wanted my money's worth.

Back here universities are free as in Beer. Students get a loan from the bank, guaranteed by the state. It used to work ok, but now an increasing number of students work both summer and semester, to finance their living. Helsinki is one expensive place to live in.

> Another factor was the attitude that Caltech had towards its students. It treated them like adults. I had never experienced that before. Caltech does not proctor exams, does not have curfews, does not attempt to control what goes on in the dorms, professors are not allowed to take attendance, etc. Most of the students quickly responded to that and behaved like responsible adults.
> 
> And then we had great events like Carl Sagan coming to dinner at our dorm, guest lectures from folks like Richard Feynmann, and the people running the JPL probes, etc. If all you got out of all that was a degree, too bad, so sad <g>.

You make me cry. That's exactly the kind of place where I thought at 14 I'd be when in university. And I still wish. :-(

As a child I read SciAm (from 12 on), and read about all this way cool stuff the folks at MIT and the other places do, and my goal was to go to America to study. Then some crap happened at home.

Walter Bright wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> Well, when it comes to college, what you're paying for are the classes and the degree (and, of course, books/room/board). So I'm certainly going to measure it's worth with that in mind. Having a dinner with Carl Segan, as great as he was, is hardly worth $100,000, unless you're filthy stinking rich. 
> 
> You could view it as paying for classes and a degree, and some colleges certainly operate it that way. I look at it as more of paying for the environment, much like I'd pay entry to a nice buffet filled with delicious treats to choose from <g>.

Yes. If you know why you're going, that's what you'd do. Those who go because Daddy sez, they just want the classes and the degree. Preferably without even the classes. :-)

Sean Kelly wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>> Multiple choice exams were against the rules at Caltech (even though we did have a few huge lecture-based classes).
>>
>> I'll still hold forth, however, that you're going to get out of it what you are willing to put into it. If you're only going to target getting a degree, I wouldn't hire you. If you are in college to get the most out of the experience (and there are huge opportunities for that in college), your results will be far better.
> 
> Definitely.  I never understood people who were trying for a degree or job for money or other reasons instead of because they were interested in the work.  If you've got to do it every day then you should enjoy it.  I've never met someone who was good in their field if they didn't enjoy the work either.
> 
>> 90% of the classes I took I selected because they interested me and I thought they were important. I made sure I understood front to back every single homework problem, and every exam problem I got wrong. I also paid for most of it out of a part time and summer job, and I'm sure that paying the tuition bills influenced my attitude as well <g>. I wanted my money's worth.
> 
> I'd just like to chime in here that you shouldn't go to college until you're ready go all the way through.  I dropped out after three years the first time (landed a career by accident and couldn't manage doing both), and having that school record when I returned a decade later actually hurt me instead of helped me.
> 
> When I went back to school I didn't have the luxury of taking what I wanted because I had a full-time job as well, and while I managed to find some cool courses anyway, I still wish I'd been able to take a few that simply weren't offered at a good time.  The biggest struggle the second time around were the courses I had to take for distributional requirements that I had absolutely no interest in whatsoever.  Leisure Studies being one such, for example (it was the only course offered online that fit a requirement I had to meet).

Got a similar life. After badly gone entrance exams, round here the universities have a joint entrance exam, and the better ones get to pick and choose. I never had learnt to seriously work for exams, so I fared lousy, so my only choice was to go to a crappy "rural" university. They didn't even have a single computer in 1977, although I had already written my first FORTRAN programs 8 years earlier. (At home, with no computer to run them on. :-( )

The first semester was math and engineering drawing. The math was lectured mostly by some 2nd year students, who I think didn't understand the math themselves! The drawing was ink on translucent paper. My hands weren't steady enough, and all the professor ever cared about were that lines meet literally perfectly and that the numbers and text had to look printed. I hated every bit of it. And instead of on-campus dorms, we lived in large buildings in the middle of woods, with no life around, ten miles from town. After the first year I quit.

Then ten years and a a career in telemarketing (where I initially got because you didn't need a CV!), I sold my firm and decided to get a university degree, no matter what. Sort of, just to get even with fate. So I went to study business at a minority university. And I didn't care one bit about the crap they were teaching, I only wanted a master's degree.

By that time there were actually computers around. (The 286, if anybody today knows what that means.) And the university had a HP 3000 early model (with a totally disgusting OS and a text editor that made *vi* look like a Ferrari and Lexus combined).

But hey, I got a job at the computer center, took every single class that even remotely was IT related, and got a degree. I guess I can say I got reasonably even with fate...

Walter Bright wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> Well, when it comes to college, what you're paying for are the classes and the degree (and, of course, books/room/board). So I'm certainly going to measure it's worth with that in mind. Having a dinner with Carl Segan, as great as he was, is hardly worth $100,000, unless you're filthy stinking rich. 
> 
> You could view it as paying for classes and a degree, and some colleges certainly operate it that way. I look at it as more of paying for the environment, much like I'd pay entry to a nice buffet filled with delicious treats to choose from <g>.

I think you really are paying for the degree--the environment is just a perk, assuming you're lucky enough to be at a school that has such an environment.

The first university I attended (I went to three altogether) was a highly regarded school, particularly for their engineering program.  One evening I was at a party and brought up some marginally intellectual topic in conversation.  Someone standing nearby turned to me and said "dude shut up, we're not in class."  That sadly typified the environment at that particular university.  Perhaps not surprisingly, I transferred away not long after.

The second university was closer to home, smaller, and had a more study-oriented environment overall.  But it was also less challenging, and didn't offer a single evening class.  I got a job in R&D while looking for a job one summer and after a semester or two of juggling a full-time job and day classes with an hour commute between the two I couldn't take it any more and dropped out.  It was a decent school overall, but certainly didn't have the kind of environment you're talking about.

Finally, I decided to go back to school and finish my degree maybe six years ago, and basically had to start from scratch.  I went to a local community college to cover the distributional requirements and then transferred to a state university.  A large segment of the students commuted and many of them worked, which may help explain why most of them seemed there for the degree rather than the education.  But many of the professors were excellent and as I was some 15 years older than most of the students I didn't really care about the student environment anyway--I spent most of my time talking to the teachers instead.

I'm not sure if my experiences are typical, but I can say with confidence that I've never been in an environment like you've described.  If I had I probably would have enjoyed school a lot more, and may not have taken 18 years to finish my undergrad degree :-)  I'm still thinking about going back for my masters and possibly a phd, but certainly not because of any fond memories I have of my time in college.

Sean Kelly Wrote:

> Walter Bright wrote:
> > Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> >> Well, when it comes to college, what you're paying for are the classes and the degree (and, of course, books/room/board). So I'm certainly going to measure it's worth with that in mind. Having a dinner with Carl Segan, as great as he was, is hardly worth $100,000, unless you're filthy stinking rich.
> > 
> > You could view it as paying for classes and a degree, and some colleges certainly operate it that way. I look at it as more of paying for the environment, much like I'd pay entry to a nice buffet filled with delicious treats to choose from <g>.
> 
> I think you really are paying for the degree--the environment is just a perk, assuming you're lucky enough to be at a school that has such an environment.
> 
> The first university I attended (I went to three altogether) was a highly regarded school, particularly for their engineering program.  One evening I was at a party and brought up some marginally intellectual topic in conversation.  Someone standing nearby turned to me and said "dude shut up, we're not in class."  That sadly typified the environment at that particular university.  Perhaps not surprisingly, I transferred away not long after.
> 
> The second university was closer to home, smaller, and had a more study-oriented environment overall.  But it was also less challenging, and didn't offer a single evening class.  I got a job in R&D while looking for a job one summer and after a semester or two of juggling a full-time job and day classes with an hour commute between the two I couldn't take it any more and dropped out.  It was a decent school overall, but certainly didn't have the kind of environment you're talking about.
> 
> Finally, I decided to go back to school and finish my degree maybe six years ago, and basically had to start from scratch.  I went to a local community college to cover the distributional requirements and then transferred to a state university.  A large segment of the students commuted and many of them worked, which may help explain why most of them seemed there for the degree rather than the education.  But many of the professors were excellent and as I was some 15 years older than most of the students I didn't really care about the student environment anyway--I spent most of my time talking to the teachers instead.
> 
> I'm not sure if my experiences are typical, but I can say with
> confidence that I've never been in an environment like you've described.
>   If I had I probably would have enjoyed school a lot more, and may not
> have taken 18 years to finish my undergrad degree :-)  I'm still
> thinking about going back for my masters and possibly a phd, but
> certainly not because of any fond memories I have of my time in college.

sup dawgz. good thread. my 2c follow. secondary education here sucks goat balls. dee told me in japan kids take exams since they was in da womb. my hardest exam in highschool was to break the nose of a moron before he broke mine. in us they let you take it too easy and assert yer shit and all dat shit. we have debate fucking class but no serious math n shit. my fist is debate. teach me fucking hard science thats wut school is 4. and if yer poor forget goin' to a decent college. teacher @ motherfucking comm college in east baltimore knew less pascal than me. and i fucking hate pascal.

"Georg Wrede" <georg.wrede@iki.fi> wrote in message news:gr7p2o$2neh$1@digitalmars.com...

> As a child I read SciAm (from 12 on), and read about all this way cool stuff the folks at MIT and the other places do, and my goal was to go to America to study. Then some crap happened at home.

MIT is for rich kids.