Hacker News Reader

Comment by querez | Hacker News Reader

> One of the issues is also just academia being so hyper-focused on thinking everyone is there to become an academic which is not the case for the vast majority of people

I'm not sure I follow why this is bad. I think academic rigor and being a decent scholar, as well as being able to parse and produce research are good things (and in my mind, those are the corner stones of being an academic). Did misunderstand you?

FWIW, in germany (and likely other european countries) we have a two tier system for higher education, consisting of universities and "applied universities", with the latter focusing on applied skills and the former focusing on research, which in think is sensible.

View on HN

I don't think the problem is that academic rigor isn't good. I also should have stated I was talking more about US universities in this particular case.

The problem I see is that what you talk about as academic rigor isn't what is taught and evaluated in many of the programs and classes that I've seen or been a part of. A lot of these exams and assessments don't particularly evaluate you on your ability to research and understand knowledge. If I know for example that my physics professor uses a bank of questions then it is much more incentivized for me to memorize that bank of questions vs. understanding the content and working the problems myself. Whereas in say a Discrete Math or Algorithm based class, the final exam/grade is based on a proof you have to write yourself, that encourages (or rather at times forces) you to learn and research like you said.

I also think the issue, and this may just be me looking at from my own experience, a lot of people don't want to be scholars, as you put it. They went to a University based on the unfortunate expectation for some jobs that say you need that diploma as your entry ticket.

in germany (and likely other european countries) we have a two tier system for higher education, consisting of universities and "applied universities", with the latter focusing on applied skills and the former focusing on research

While it isn't codified, we effectively have this in the US as well.

Most of the "brand name" universities, plus the flagship state universities, conduct research and grant various doctoral degrees.

Then we have the middle-tier colleges (state and private) that grant masters (often only professional degrees like nursing, MBAs, etc).

And thousands of Baccalaureate-only and 2-year community colleges.

Also, in the US, "university" generally indicates a post-graduate degree granting institution. And "college" usually refers to a 2-year and Baccalaureate-only school. But, also not codified and there are notable exceptions (ex: The College of William & Mary is a top-notch full university who's name pre-dates the convention).

In the US, "college" means narrow subject matter, and "university" means a wide variety of colleges all together on one campus.

For example, there may be a "College of Engineering" and a "College of Arts and Science" that are part of one university.

It's possible to have a stand-alone college that isn't in a university. A good example is Berklee College of Music, which is narrowly focused on music.

I’ve never seen “narrow focus” as a definition for college. I’ve always seen it used as US News uses it.

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2018...

But, you are correct that subject schools within a larger uni are often called College of Such and Such.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com