Organised team vs team scrim

It sounds random, tbh. But are you saying you attended lots of lectures and over 9 years you couldn't be bothered to learn anything? Or are you saying you were missing whole swathes of content needed to complete a degree?

Or are you just saying teachers bad?

 

Oh geez, I think I'm actually starting to prefer having a semi-private university instead of a public one. Doesn't your campus have a student union or some form of student representation to keep your professors in line? Or since it's free I'm guessing there's less emphasis on getting your "moneys worth" out of the education.

And by anyone can enroll, don't they usually have to pass an exam to get into public universities, and if they fail they have to go to a private institution? Or is Austria different?

 

TIL Candles is an instructor.

 

All you need is high-school graduation to get into university (with a few exceptions for things like medicine, psychology and other studies that would get flodded by our German friends otherwise).

And yes, I also think it is a problem, I'd rather prefer an entry exam that checks if you fulfill the standard they expect from you there beforehand than the brutal selection that usually takes places after you already invested some years. It is just so terribly inefficient, for both sides.

For example I spend 4 years on my economics bachelor. In the first year courses I was among the best, in the 2nd year I struggled with the maths but still made it, but in the 3rd they expected a level of giftedness in mathematics I just don't have, so I dropped out. Of ~90 beginners only 30 finish their econ bachelor here and it takes them 5 years on average.

In theory the Austrian system is wonderfully meritocratic, there are no social hurdles or arbitrary decisions who gets into university and the degrees have a lot of value in the job market. But for lazy spoiled brats like me, I would rather prefer the US system, where you first have to get accepted and then pay lots of money, but atleast you get your degree.

Of course, YMMV, someone like Candles would also pass a CS degree in Austria without major problems, but for the majority of students it's a subpar system.

 

Huh, in poland the selection part is usually the first year, maybe second. Its those two that have the most hardcore subjects. After that it gets way better.
I spend my first two years stressed the fuck out.
MY current, 4th, year i actually got some bad habits back because i didnt have to do fuck all. But hey, at least i was able to get soe progress done my backlog.

 

Mcgyver is fucking talking out of his ass, you are basicly saying the system fucked you over because it didnt tell you university actually gets harder after every year? Newsflash thats how school works.

You are implying to everyone here on the forum how if the system was different and you had to pay you wouldve passed, fuck no, stop blaiming everything except your self for not succeeding and it being "too hard", you couldve just done more and invested more time and you wouldve passed but you didnt and you failed. A college degree isnt suppose to get passed into your hands like a fucking hamburger you order at the mcdonalds.

You spent 9 years, nine fucking years in college. 9 free years because how the system works and you want to change to a system with entree exams? Sure man keep making up excuses.

 

Idk how it is in the rest of the weird, but the first two years of a four year degree are typically babby years. Those classes are fun. I know it's not always that way, especially with engineering programs where you're working in teams in semi-legit projects as early as your first year.

Economists are basically drop-out mathematicians, so I'm not sure what you were expecting. Real Analysis is hard.

 

I'm of the opinion that University should cost enough money that people don't just go to University because it's the easy option. I know debt sucks but if you're going to Uni to do some stupid course like "Surfing studies" or "Events planning" then you're clearly just doing it for a 3-4 year course in drinking. A degree should mean something towards employment, and you should be doing it because you want to actually go into that field.

 

Libraries should be free, but university should not.

When you take a class, you are often taking up the time of a professor with the goal of having him share his insight. His time is expensive, so this isn't an efficient way to share insight.

Most research professors publish their work. This is an efficient way for the researcher to share his insight. He doesn't have to waste his time for you to learn. You can just read his papers or books. To fairly share this efficient knowledge with many people, libraries full of these works are free.

If you want to learn, go to the free library. If you want someone to spend their time holding your hand add you learn, you need to pay up.

 

Education isnt free people, education gets paid with your taxes and we in the education is "Free"countries pay more taxes

 

Yea, denial of university level to the lower social classes would not fly at all around here.

 

Then it's just a circle jerk and there's no real need to go through all of that inefficient government bureaucracy in the first place. No circle jerks necessary.

We already see that in the states. I think more than half of Harvard students go there for free. I remember there was a shit storm about their multi-billion dollar endowment fund, but it turned out that most students can utilize that endowment and those that don't tend to be wealthy.

 

The only reason I could go to university was because of my scholarships, though I guess I could have put myself into really deep debt to do it instead.

Somebody once made the argument to me that rich people are genetically better in some way, and therefore smarter. They elaborated that having money meant the parents were smart so the child was smart as well, so the cost of university was justified since the smart people would have the money to go. I didn't bother wasting my time on that one.

 

The difference between taxes paid education and individual paid education is taxes paid gives more equal chances whilst individual doesnt give equal chances at all.

BUT aside from all of that the real discussion should be entry exams.

 

Sounds like Trickster.

 

It's actually a real theory. It got formed during a research about social health inequity. First generation self made rich people are supposedly just geneticly better health wise and brains wise. They score high with OCEAN characteristics level or some shit.

 

Thats sort of a stupid argument, but its not absolutely incorrect either.
The problem is that in normal enviroment evolution goes like this. You are fit to the enviroment, you live, you procreate. That model doesnt really apply to modern human society where you can either get brought down or elevated skyhigh because of parental bonus. Now of course smart people should be statiscally more likely to have smart children
(though ive heard many voices that its not true for intelligence [how exactly, dno, it seems like it should, just like any other trait really] ,though we are skipping the part where humans aren't your average day animals and part of the smarts comes from upbringing)
, it really hurts the society when good stuff from the poor side is being kept down, while the moronic part of the rich side gets a a free ticket to a good life.
I actually had some thoughs about how one could go about nullifying this parental bonus, but offtopic galore and i hate writing.