Being a university fresher can be hard
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
What am I missing that makes things so different and so difficult today? This isn't meant as snark, merely that I didn't have kids and I'm really curious as to why there's such a generational difference.
I fully understand how individuals can crash and burn as they did it then as well.
Your past is un-erasable. My time in Uni included many things I leave behind me. I can name-drop the UK comic who could have been "sent down" for keeping a York University duck in a cardboard box under his bed, which is luckily (for him) undocumented. Animal cruelty? he'd be in deep shit with the BBC. Or the politician's son arrested for minor dope offenses. Now? Its on tiktok forever. You really cannot progress in some fields (politics) if you enjoy university as much as I did.
My Uni experience was fully funded by the state. The state did not demand repayment, and arts was fine. Have fun. Now? the likelihood of a debt you can't service for a poor choice of subject is very real.
Truly it's NOT the same course. My field, comp sci, only existed as a part degree at the start of my course and was full degree by the end, we had 10 students and tutorials were 2-to-1 (2 students to one lecturer) and we complained it wasn't the oxbridge experience of 1-to-1. It's simply not comparable to the experience of learning in a modern university. The complexity of the field was tiny by comparison.
Eng lit was somewhat the same, still stuck in "modern means 17thC onwards but stops at 1871" but now, eng lit comes with trigger warnings. You can't read half the canon because it's racist or classist or sexist.
Also, the gigs were better. But I digress..
Some of it was "we were the top 10%" so it was already ordained we'd be future leaders. Now, 75% of the age group go to uni, and it means less for probably more work.
I respect any modern student. I would seriously doubt I would do well in a modern university context.
yes, much of the drink/drugs/partaaaaty was the same. And learning to cook. I would argue we paid less % of our stipend as rent, significantly less. I survived 3 years on unemployment benefits including having my rent paid over summer. I know students now who are functionally homeless and live in squalor out of a car and eat ramen every day.
TL;DR the expectations on the modern cohort ARE higher than most postwar 1950s/1960s/1970s graduates. Perhaps the modern cohort is closer to the post WW1 who had to live with not having fought and died, and had very high expectations placed on them (especially women)
It was still possible to get a job as a programmer after taking one course, and knowing a single language well, but not any libraries, OS's, or frameworks.
If you were "stupid" before 1987, you are probably safe. In the 88-92 window it's a mixed bag and after 95, you may never escape your mistakes.
This is a gross misrepresentation both of what trigger warnings are for and what the actual relationship of undergraduates and courses to the texts are. And it's undoubtedly based on nonsense coming out of a very small number of American universities.
Oxford are still doing a traditional course which is Beowulf in the first part and Victorians in the second: https://www.balliol.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate-admiss... / https://www.balliol.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/victorian_l...
Cambridge have gone freestyle: https://www.english.cam.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/cours... "Uniquely, we do not have a syllabus: instead, students work with their supervisors to devise a programme of study for themselves. There are few English departments left in the world that allow you to study the full historical range of literature in English, and we pride ourselves on the strong grounding this gives our students."
"In the first two years of your degree, you cover the full historical sweep of literature written in the English language from the medieval period to the present day" - this sounds like a really large amount of work!
A far more serious threat to English Literature is not the "cancellation" of individual authors but the wholesale actual cancellation of courses: https://metro.co.uk/2022/06/27/sheffield-hallam-university-s...
> Now, 75% of the age group go to uni
It's only just gone over 50%. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-49841620
(I was the last generation to get a student grant, but I had a small loan for living expenses)
Do you think a modern 2020s student experience is like mine, or yours? I think it's both harder (higher expectations, more course width) and potentially lower value (increased competition) and arguably less fun.
Aside from pointing out my hyperbole, what do you think to the primary question?
At the same time if you want to get ahead in many fields you'll be expected to do 20-40 hours of unpaid work a week, while maintaining crazy high averages. Outside of STEm you often also have to get pretty high academic standards if you ever want to actually use your education. And if you fail out with accumulated student debt where applicable, that's a massive setback that might mean you permanently miss out on financial milestones.
At the same time, the internet doesn't forget, so it's also a lot easier to permanently crash and burn socially.
And it's getting worse every year, too.
This postbac, coupled with longer postdocs and tougher tenure track, mean the academic path is getting harder and harder to realise.
In life sciences, getting a job after your PhD is an entry level job.
So getting a PhD to get a better job makes nearly zero sense. You only need one if you plan to stay in the academia (I do, but it will be extremely hard).
But the article doesn't appear to suggest that anything has changed. In fact it says things were much the same when the author was at university in the 80s.
It's a short, sympathetic comment piece that seems to be intended as a kindness to people who are about to start at university for the first time, surely that's all.
I dormed, and went to school clubs with a few students that saw Uni. as their ticket to riches and prestige. They’d aim for tech, banking, law, and similar jobs which require a minimum 3.5 GPA where I live.
For them, this often meant all work and no fun. Staying in the reading halls late on weekends, prioritizing grades, internships, club positions, etc. over everything.
Ironically, some of these would often lament over the “easy” majors just fucking around, sounding bitter and jealous, while trying to come off as superior. (The worst being some of my engineering peers).
I had a great time. Grew a lot, found new interests, lived life, and met a lot of different people. I was definitely a bit too ambitious as a freshman, at the cost of the “student experience”.
Didn’t get the grades I expected, and decided to just relax and have more fun.
Surprisingly the grades didn’t drop too much, so I managed to maintain over the minimum level for some of the jobs I wanted. And I ended up working alongside some of those 4.0 students, as there are many ways to land the same jobs.
School is what you make out of it. Finding your place can take time…yes, some people are lucky with finding their gang, clique, place, etc. pretty fast. For others it can take a much longer time.
Are your parents engineers or something like this, out of curiosity?
For most, it's the first time they're on their own - and last stop before professional life starts. When one door opens, another door closes.
Unfortunately, everything about the institution assumes you’re a barely out of high school kid who’s groomed themselves for university life.
By driving risk out of kids lives even small risks feel like a life or death situation. And without getting used to them as a kid it's paralyzing because mistakes can cost you a job or car or home.
And to a lesser extent making success/excellence required just doubles down on all of that.
Is it generational? I could see how for example, boomers and gen-X, who grew up in relatively good times (in the USA, at least) could be conveying higher expectations to their kids while the older generations (Silent and Greatest) could have been more cautious about assuming things would be good.
My parents lived through the great depression and WWII. Their attitude was not "things will be great!" It was more like, "If you're diligent and frugal and focus on what's important, you can be happy, but shit could go bad at any time so keep your eyes open!" [Edit: they both went to college and grad school, btw, but their attitude was that you go there and work hard, and if you do well it'll be fun sometimes.]
But I don't think these attitudes transfer through generations. I'm wondering if I've given my teen unrealistic expectations about being happy, just because I've been fairly happy. I've tried to take the attitude that she shouldn't sweat it when things don't go great because that happens to everyone and we can get through it. But maybe she interpreted that as, "It's not really normal for things to be hard, so if they're hard for me, it must be my fault."
Most of universities in continental Europe are simply buildings scattered through the city. You can stay with your parents or rent cheaply, and this is the main reason why education costs here were never a problem.
People are so soft these days.
I remember taking an entry exam for university back in my home country. A few hundred people in a boiler room. It was brutally hard. I probably failed.
No one complained.
You just got up off your butt, dusted off the shame and studied harder.
Everyone with the complaining these days.
Of course university is supposed to be hard. To weed out the lazy people. It’s supposed to be the ultimate meritocracy.
What now? Push for easier grading? More gender studies degrees so no matter how the exams turn out your answer is always right?
Ahhh I forgot we are already doing that.