does higher education/university needs to be difficult

[sushi]

I find that higher education/university needing to be difficult is pointless

it is a form of elitism

why make it so difficult that people fail and struggle to learn anything

why dont they make concepts easier to grasp?

the stuff you learn in university exams are most likely not useful in real world, its only for a job certificate or employment.

so in the end what is the point

 

[Black Rose]

not too sure,

understanding some ideas requires more intelligence than other ideas

and if so few people are intelligent enough, then who is teaching the materials anyway? books exist that have the materials.

 

[ZenRaiden]

No not really. I learn the things that were university curriculum, its easy. Wish I had more FOCUS. It is actually fun and Zero stress. I also pick when and how I learn. I also have time to go back and learn. Its less structured.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I also learn to rely more on my own understanding than relying on teachers finding my mistakes.

 

[sushi]

No not really. I learn the things that were university curriculum, its easy. Wish I had more FOCUS. It is actually fun and Zero stress. I also pick when and how I learn. I also have time to go back and learn. Its less structured.

it depends on what university you go to

but some universities are really elitist like german, US or uk ones.

most of the abstract stuff you cram is useless , its all about earning a high income job certificate.

they make stuff excessively difficult just to troll you.

the stuff you spend cramming into your brain will most likely be forgotten once you leave the school.

 

[Black Rose]

cramming is useless to me

because I do not have that kind of memory system in my brain

what I do is try to understand what I am learning

but in that case, they expect you to understand without cramming at a high university

 

[dr froyd]

well some stuff is difficult to learn because it's difficult

like, how do you make a graduate degree in math easy? you can't, you just have to be exposed to a lot of difficult problems and try to solve them, and repeat that many times until your brain obtains a representation of all the concepts.

orchestra violinists have to practice for 14 hours a day for many years to get to a professional level. Some things just cannot be made into an amusing little game if you want to get good at it.

i don't think the teaching methods in university are always the best, but ultimately there is no standardized method that is universally best, you have to find your own methods that suit you personally.

if i compare higher education with school though, one might say universities don't try to make things easy but at least they try to give you a pure version of the subject. I remember how they tried to make things "easy" in school; they simply made an adulterated caricature version of the real thing and made you learn some paint-by-numbers approach to it - which did nothing but confuse me.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

There are so many certificates we can get if we want to get accreditation at our own rate. School is school. Not education necessarily. Maybe the problem is your own perception of what schooling is, maybe it's societies perception.

A big factor of what makes makes things difficult is how much time required to complete it. This doesn't mean subject matter itself is less or more difficult. It could be up to a specific professor, or a program department policy.

The problem is that how fast I can finish a book report or assignment have little to do with applying relevant valuable skill anyways. So unless your doing STEM or your degree is explicitly in research and critical analysis, what you're doing in school probably doesn't help you much in the domain of work that you are doing anyway.

So for me educational institution is really about ensuring that the workers can follow instruction in a certain time period. I don't think this is bad necessarily. What is the point of going to school besides getting paid better? Who pays you? Employers. They're the ones that care about it, and they are probably more comfortable knowing it's setup the way it is.

What do we gain from lowering that standard so that I can basically treat it like a side project? More people can get degrees, sure. Less "elitism". Employers probably would use this as an excuse to pay less than they already are.

 

[dr froyd]

What do we gain from lowering that standard so that I can basically treat it like a side project? More people can get degrees, sure. Less "elitism". Employers probably would use this as an excuse to pay less than they already are.

if we lowered the standard uniformly it would just mean that if you're the one guy who knows how to operate the stove at mcdonalds you would get paid more than everybody else. Meanwhile the society as a whole would suffer from less economic development and we would all be poorer.

nowadays everyone has a degree so even without an education you can be objectively rich but relatively poor (like, you have toilet paper but not a 42 inch TV)

 

[birdsnestfern]

Yes, much of it is very challenging, especially with learning disabilities involved, but if you have that deep desire for a degree, you will still keep on trying. One way to learn something is to try to teach it to someone else. Sticky notes, paper notes, tape recording lectures, reading a chapter twice, even retaking a difficult class. Lots of Strong Inventory and Career tests will also help you narrow down a field. Looking in the paper to see what is actually hiring in your area too. The ones I considered: Forest Ranger, Architect, Physical Therapist, Computer Programming, Accounting, Chiropractor, Geologist, Botanist. I had always liked drawing and designing homes even as young at 8, and always loved rocks and crystals and earth studies and plants. If you remember what you liked as a child, that is a good clue.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I don't think the problem is clear to some of you, but the number of theories and concepts today is much higher than 100 years ago in Academia.
What Newton had to know to be a genius of century would be considered childs play by todays standards.
Cramming all the knowledge of particular field into 4 to 5 years, is impossible, but its necessary that people know them.
So the curriculum is fast paced theory and concept learning.
Very good for INTP types, and INTJ types.

The benefit of knowing all those things is real, but if you stop learning after leaving the university, in span of 10 years your know how is obsolete.

You need to learn a bit after you leave to stay ahead of the curve one way or another.

On flip side you have no real life experience. None.
You don't know anything about tangible real world.
And you may have very little practical skills.
You are crafting a specific laser slice of human understanding and learning to apply it so you can get a job.

The benefits could be many though, from bitches and hoes, to drinking and winging it, and networking and having a title that says "I can learn and focus for long hours."

The benefit is also having more options in job market.

So University is a trade off.

The learning on University level is simply hard because our minds are not built to absorb 100s of concepts in span of 4 to 5 years.

Hard is also relativistic term.
For some people learning is easy even on this level.
For some its hard, because they just barely understand anything.
The reality is that you are learning valuable knowledge, but it still requires effort to get a job that is well payed.
The number of people who leave University and think they are some hot stuff, and get a mediocre job at some office or whatever is astounding.

Some people even search for blue collar jobs because of the limits in job market many times better payed.

The real advantage is you learn to learn a lot in short span of time, and you learn to write a little, and think a little.

If you are life long learner ergo you have no beef with learning, university is good place to figure out what you like, and if you don't go - you are life long learner, so you can still learn anything regardless.

Question is do you like sitting and learning. If so University is the easiest way to go.

Difficulty is relativistic. For instance if as a student you are learning about something that took smart people to figure out in span of 10 years, and you have 10 hours to understand it, of course its going to be difficult. Its also impossible to know anything really in debt to a point where you are a master of given thing. So its easy to fall asleep on your high intellectual horse, and realize people who never been to university can run circles around you.

 

[sushi]

I don't think the problem is clear to some of you, but the number of theories and concepts today is much higher than 100 years ago in Academia.
What Newton had to know to be a genius of century would be considered childs play by todays standards.
Cramming all the knowledge of particular field into 4 to 5 years, is impossible, but its necessary that people know them.
So the curriculum is fast paced theory and concept learning.
Very good for INTP types, and INTJ types.

thats true, and most of it is useless in everyday application if crammed in a manner the brain cant absorbed.

making education ciriculam and exams more challenging does not really benefit society as whole. Its only good for weeding the best and train professionals not to make engineering and medical mistakes.

if you exhaust your brainpower learning wheat the past generation discovered, how can you excessive brainpower discover new things. One is basically taught and indoctrinated by what the previous people and generation discovered.

one can argue if one makes education laxer, there will be more medical and engineering mistakes, and bridges will collapse due to putting incompetent people in jobs, but i think that can be solved with AI and other methods.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Yes, we have obviously limit to brain power.
IQ is nice, but not the only bottleneck.
Other bottlenecks are willpower, privilege, personality traits, neurodivergence ergo not being square peg fitting round hole,
memory which can be trained, but some people have better than others,
ability to focus for prolonged time.
We might assume people weeded out of academia are dummies, but realistically neurotics with high conscientiousness traits will out score other types of people.
More importantly lot of smart people are fast paced solution oriented, some are marathon runners. The reality is we need both types of brains in real world, with academic knowledge, but current system benefits mostly the people who are sticklers.

 

[SteppeWanderer]

 

[sushi]

there will be still issac newtons and geniuses even if education is dumbed down
those people are extreme end of the bell curve, an outlier. They exist regardless how easy or hard education is. A challenging Education doesn t encourage these type of people because its all about learning cramming past knowledge rather discovering new things and creativity.

the only unsolvable problem is putting incompetent people at jobs, making unrepairable mistakes like bridge collapsing or airplane crashing just because they made wrong calculations. but i think there are ways to solve that other than the prussian system we suffer now. Especially computers are so advanced.

 

[Black Rose]

If it is the job certificate that matters,

then what you study should be in your field.

what field are you trying to go for?

 

[ZenRaiden]

A challenging Education doesn t encourage these type of people because its all about learning cramming past knowledge rather discovering new things and creativity.

Whats been discovered is that high IQ people do need variety and challenge and actually do poorly in unchallenging environments.
But you are right they don't necessarily learn well in rote memory and sequential learning which is most of what we do all day long in schools.
Its actually a small portion of high IQ individuals who are sequential learners.
Most are conceptual and imaginative.
That is what makes them highly valuable and also reason why many of them don't do well in higher education.
Its not that they cannot do it, its they don't want to. Academia literally is boring and pain in the ass.

 

[BurnedOut]

I always found it to be too easy. It was challenging in ways that was unworthy - byhearting endless facts and sucking professors cocks by attending their lectures who hold your marks for ransom by giving ultra-top-secret notes

 

[sushi]

I always found it to be too easy. It was challenging in ways that was unworthy - byhearting endless facts and sucking professors cocks by attending their lectures who hold your marks for ransom by giving ultra-top-secret notes

maybe i am just below average

but i find learning much easier when i am not being graded and evaluated

thats why most autodidact hates teachers.

 

[BurnedOut]

Maybe i said a little too much. Actually my bachelor's was a turbulent because I was lazy in studying but it was not much of an issue when I was studying fairly seriously and not completely slacking off

 

[scorpiomover]

I find that higher education/university needing to be difficult is pointless

it is a form of elitism

why make it so difficult that people fail and struggle to learn anything

why dont they make concepts easier to grasp?

So that not only a minority goes to university

the stuff you learn in university exams are most likely not useful in real world, its only for a job certificate or employment.

Only a minority of jobs require the skills you learn at university.

so in the end what is the point

So that you don't have 90% of the people trying to be a scientist, when only 1 in 1,000 scientists.

 

[scorpiomover]

No not really. I learn the things that were university curriculum, its easy. Wish I had more FOCUS. It is actually fun and Zero stress. I also pick when and how I learn. I also have time to go back and learn. Its less structured.

it depends on what university you go to

but some universities are really elitist like german, US or uk ones.

In a UK university, you can get a B-grade degree with just 2 hours a day of studying.

most of the abstract stuff you cram is useless , its all about earning a high income job certificate.

It's about learning abstract stuff that is almost never applied to regular life, but is very much valued in the work done in high-income jobs.

E.G. A mathematician developed the algorithm that is used in the software for automatic online trading. Probably makes trillions of dollars a year for the investment houses that use it.

the stuff you spend cramming into your brain will most likely be forgotten once you leave the school.

It's not intended to help the average person in their daily life (even though it could).
It's designed to help industries make more money, e.g. optimisation theory for making oil pipelines more efficient (the Simplex Method, 3rd year maths).

 

[dr froyd]

the stuff you spend cramming into your brain will most likely be forgotten once you leave the school.

It's not intended to help the average person in their daily life (even though it could).
It's designed to help industries make more money, e.g. optimisation theory for making oil pipelines more efficient (the Simplex Method, 3rd year maths).

i think that's an important point; there are certain theoretical subjects that have use in real life but often outside the scope of what most people do for a living. In those subjects "elitism" is the only way to actually get to a level where it can reliably be applied. If you're an engineer designing real-life infrastructure, you can't be self-taught off youtube tutorials, or having been educated in a A-for-effort type system.

i don't agree with the sentiment that it's all for corporate interests though. Yes, businesses make money from it, but when someone uses the simplex method to optimize infrastructure, that's to the benefit of society as a whole.

 

[ZenRaiden]

you can't be self-taught off youtube tutorials,

Sure, but you are saying that like its legit only way to teach oneself.

 

[Black Rose]

Yesterday I talked to someone who said they could do maths in their head.

So like give them a maths problem and they solve it in 30 seconds.

His teachers in high school complained he was not "showing his work".

So his mother was called, she said to the teacher if the teacher could not solve it that fast then the teacher was wasting her time, she needed to be at work in 2 minutes.

-

It is not a matter of schools being elite, it is a matter of if you are elite yourself.

Elite people do things fast, so that is what the schools are looking for.

That is how the school system has been set up since the 1950s

 

[ZenRaiden]

Yesterday I talked to someone who said they could do maths in their head.

I can too, it depends what kind of maths. We do a lot math in our heads anyway, including the thinking part.

So like give them a maths problem and they solve it in 30 seconds.

I doubt a real math problem can be solved in 30 seconds. You are being told elitist stuff by someone who is really being elitist, but not real. That said I do believe there are people who can construct equations and solve equations in their heads, but whether that is useful depends.

His teachers in high school complained he was not "showing his work".

Teachers usually have one way of seeing teaching, a teacher has been taught a certain schema and they follow it, because that is the only way they know how to teach.

So his mother was called, she said to the teacher if the teacher could not solve it that fast then the teacher was wasting her time, she needed to be at work in 2 minutes.

Mothers and fathers are bad at assessing problems when it comes to school stuff. They are concerned about well being of children, but rarely know what is good for their kids. That would require mothers and fathers to spend time with their kids. Most mothers and fathers don't spend much time with kids, if they do they rarely know what their kids are about. That goes for a lot of teachers and counselors too.

It is not a matter of schools being elite, it is a matter of if you are elite yourself.

Elite is subjective. What is elite in one way, can be detrimental in other way. Skills can be really advanced, but does not mean they necessarily translate to real world, cause that is the only way money is made ergo profit, and ergo product.
Schools want to see that students can produce something, because that means you get a job.

Elite people do things fast, so that is what the schools are looking for.

Sure, but not many employers necessarily are looking for show of skills. If I were business person I want to know if the person I hire will solve my problem. I would probably rely on the fact the person has a school, but realistically I won't know if they can do it, until they have done it. Schools kind of low level standard proof they can do something. Elite means you can do something above average, but life is full of elite people. Anyone dedicated to something above average is elite by default.

That is how the school system has been set up since the 1950s

In 50s kids were taught tangible skills, not just abstract stuff.
So if you were a kid in 50s you probably know how a circuit board looks like you probably know how to set up a circuit with a batter and a light bulb.
How many kids today actually learn in lets say 5th grade class how to set up a light bulb and a batter and make it work?
Kids in the past also made experiments.
I made a steam engine in 4th grade. I also made a cola drink. These experiments are rare though in todays schools. You barely do anything pragmatic and tangible today.
You are taught in the abstract. So much so you have highlevel skills, but you cannot even fix a sink or a trash can hing, or fix your own electric in the house.
These skills are basic, and even kids know how to learn these things, but today in the 2000s you barely know how anything works, despite that we are taught highlevel knowledge.

We have very uneven profile of intellect today. Very concept driven, but pragmatically 0 know how. This is because schools follow the trend of jobs on the market, but they don't necessarily follow any inherent logic or even common sense.

 

[Black Rose]

There is a difference between grade school and university.

In grade school they do stuff that is physical beginning in elementary then get more abstract in middle and high school.

But University is different because all they want are people that get every answer correct.

That is why if you pass the tests with all answers correct you get to go to "elite" universities.

At universities when you get low scores, you can be trained in jobs about physical things like circuit boards or water heaters but at high-end universities they expect you to solve what is given to you at an abstract level because then you will be able to design things in ways you cannot with wood and metal alone right in front of you.

What those abstract problems are I am not too sure but it is different from just fixing things and is more about making something that works in a new way.

It is called STEM - Science Technology Engineering Math

What is looked for are people who just are geniuses, that CAN do everything.

But in the end, because only a few super-geniuses exist, universities follow tiers.

120 to 145 at the top 110 to 120 in the middle and then the rest at the bottom.

Universities and high schools did testing to concentrate all people above 125 into the top. That is to say all people who got all the answers correct.

This is not about what people can be trained to do, this is about being able to do stuff immediately with no training at all.

(we like them girls who can eat food - eat food, give them some food and they know what to do next) - My Favorite Martian Music Video, We Like Them Girls

 

[dr froyd]

you can't be self-taught off youtube tutorials,

Sure, but you are saying that like its legit only way to teach oneself.

it's an exaggeration, but depending on the starting point i think it's extremely unrealistic to think one can learn complicated things without continuous input from people who are masters of the subject (which you get in an educational institution). It works if you already have a solid foundation - you have an intuitive sense of what it means to understand a concept, what pitfalls there are, what's important and what's less important etc etc. Otherwise i think it's next to impossible unless you're a genius.

i remember when doing my thesis in math, there were certain things i simply couldn't figure out even if i read 20 different explanations of it in different books. But one convo with the professor and boom i get it.

 

[ZenRaiden]

it's an exaggeration, but depending on the starting point i think it's extremely unrealistic to think one can learn complicated things without continuous input from people who are masters of the subject (which you get in an educational institution). It works if you already have a solid foundation - you have an intuitive sense of what it means to understand a concept, what pitfalls there are, what's important and what's less important etc etc. Otherwise i think it's next to impossible unless you're a genius.

Its unrealistic yes, that is where I think its important to remain grounded in what one knows. I think this where self learning requires prudence. Just because I spent 1000 of hours learning something does not mean jack if I did it wrong, and made the wrong assumptions. I agree with this wholeheartedly.

i remember when doing my thesis in math, there were certain things i simply couldn't figure out even if i read 20 different explanations of it in different books. But one convo with the professor and boom i get it.

Well that is given. Someone who has years of practice will be more proficient than beginner or even intermediate.
Usually though the reason an expert is able to explain it to you is simply, because they had the time to sink into the topic, otherwise they be as dumb as the rest.
This is the question, number one, where is the expert knowledge coming from?

 

[dr froyd]

Well that is given. Someone who has years of practice will be more proficient than beginner or even intermediate.
Usually though the reason an expert is able to explain it to you is simply, because they had the time to sink into the topic, otherwise they be as dumb as the rest.
This is the question, number one, where is the expert knowledge coming from?

well my point was more about the interaction itself - having another person listen to you and explain you stuff is an interactive process where they can pinpoint where you are on the wrong track or have misunderstood something. In theory one can achieve the same thing with just books or whatever, but in practice not really because it will take you 1000x longer to figure out what you misunderstood.

 

[scorpiomover]

the stuff you spend cramming into your brain will most likely be forgotten once you leave the school.

It's not intended to help the average person in their daily life (even though it could).
It's designed to help industries make more money, e.g. optimisation theory for making oil pipelines more efficient (the Simplex Method, 3rd year maths).

i think that's an important point; there are certain theoretical subjects that have use in real life but often outside the scope of what most people do for a living. In those subjects "elitism" is the only way to actually get to a level where it can reliably be applied. If you're an engineer designing real-life infrastructure, you can't be self-taught off youtube tutorials, or having been educated in a A-for-effort type system.

i don't agree with the sentiment that it's all for corporate interests though. Yes, businesses make money from it, but when someone uses the simplex method to optimize infrastructure, that's to the benefit of society as a whole.

Learning ballistics in school, made playing pool easy in university.

Cauchy's residue theorem showed me that converting corners to be rounded corners in the home, vastly increased energy efficiency, and also significantly reduced undesirable side-effects such as unpleasant noises from devices.

Most problems of moving house, moving furniture, etc, involve several requirements that can be expressed as an equation with either =, <, >, <=, or >= as the main boolean operator. The Simplex method would be a very quick way to work out solutions to those problems. The Simple method also happens to be a method that people who are very poor at maths seem to be very competent at. So it would be perfect for problems of logistics.

The Simple method is also great for problems such as working out which mobile phone tariff to choose, and all sorts of other decisions where you want the best outcome possible.

Gauss-Jordan elimination is a great way for figuring out all of your options that satisfy all of your requirements, when you have at least 20 minutes to make a decision, and a lot of important decisions are ones where you have time to decide. 20 minutes is not a long time, not when it takes days to do something simple like drive across America.

Students are taught these methods, but are not taught how to apply them in their personal lives, even though it's very clear that they would also be applicable to many situations in their personal lives to great effect, just as they also happen to be application to many situations in their industrial lives to great effect.

 

[dr froyd]

constrained optimization in general is super useful, but used surprisingly little.

 

[BurnedOut]

I can proudly claim that my 17 years of education has been completely useless and inadequate to be utilized in the real world. Probably the last degree I am going to take has some value in the real world. I got rejected for a data entry part-job on linkedin despite the fact that I have 'being able to do data analysis' in CV. Apparently data analysis as no data entry and data entry is only associated with some specific educational qualification. I never knew that even typing requires academic conformation in this era

 

[sushi]

No not really. I learn the things that were university curriculum, its easy. Wish I had more FOCUS. It is actually fun and Zero stress. I also pick when and how I learn. I also have time to go back and learn. Its less structured.

it depends on what university you go to

but some universities are really elitist like german, US or uk ones.

In a UK university, you can get a B-grade degree with just 2 hours a day of studying.
hod, 3rd year maths).

you not talking about oxbridge are you?

I can proudly claim that my 17 years of education has been completely useless and inadequate to be utilized in the real world. Probably the last degree I am going to take has some value in the real world. I got rejected for a data entry part-job on linkedin despite the fact that I have 'being able to do data analysis' in CV. Apparently data analysis as no data entry and data entry is only associated with some specific educational qualification. I never knew that even typing requires academic conformation in this era

i learned 70% of my knowledge outside of school curriculum. The only function school does is passing and failing you.

the democraticization of education through the internet is nice trend, hopefully it will continue in the future towards better things.