[flagged]
Is that what it’s about? Keep in that the University of Michigan is a public university, explicitly founded to “provide the inhabitants of this state with the means of acquiring a thorough knowledge of the various branches of literature, science, and the arts.” There’s nothing about being elite in there at all. This is an institution that serves the public.
I’m no stranger to long hours to achieve high status—I’m a professor. But I also started my journey at a public school and a public undergraduate institution. Many of my friends—all good and smart people but in many cases decidedly NOT elite-have leveraged their public education into satisfying careers. I, and my friends, would not have had our opportunities otherwise. I simply could not afford top private school.
I don’t know what to think about this change exactly, but it’s worth pointing out that MIT has had this policy for first year students since 1968. MIT! Seems like UM can make this work if they are thoughtful about it.
And yes, certainly a (traditional) university education should not be required for having good career opportunities.
IMO there's a need for a type of education that's vastly more scalable and still equips people with the beyond-secondary education they need to be productive in today's economy.
Competitive universities are competitive. Sometimes that competiton is justified and sometimes it is unjustifiably based on pedigree. The program I attended before getting my PhD at a public university was at a well-known private university. But in terms of research productivity and impact, the public university was a MUCH better place to go to school. The PhD program was exceptionally competitive but its undergrad program was not. As a result, many undergrads who wandered through our lab door got a first-class research experience.
I’m not going to pretend that pedigree doesn’t matter (to some people), but it is emphatically not the same thing as “a good preparation.” I took a couple math classes one summer at a low-tier state college. They were just as good as any math classes I took at any of the other places I went to school, public or private.
That still doesn't mean they're not "for the elites." Universities are for people striving for upward mobility, i.e. to get into or maintain membership in the elite tiers of society. Also there is (obviously) significant variation in the upper end of the elite and the lower end.
> Not sure what your point is.
Well, you said
> All universities are for the elites.
And then I countered that, actually, many are not selective. I am asking you to reconsider your statement. In reality, many college programs confer _skills_, not _status_. This narrative that colleges are for the elites is demonstrably untrue, runs counter to the founding mission of many of them, and strikes me as sour grapes. I know because I was one of the kids who struggled to afford college, went to a public one where I learned _skills_, which I then leveraged into a satisfying career.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_...
[2] https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/visualizat...
You're smart, you'll figure it out.
In return you get inflated GPAs that get you into better colleges. But if you can't figure it out on the first try? More stress.
Interestingly, a lot of colleges now ignore the 'honors' weighted GPA and ask to see the unweighted score. If you have a teen entering high school, skip the honors track and help them do better in the normal track version of the class. See if your school offers dual-credit with a local community college or state university. Those transfer credits are WAY more valuable now (and cheaper!) than an AP score, with a lot less test stress.
After emerging from an ap/ib honors program in highschool (with excellent teachers) I became increasingly stressed in college when any real simple lack of comprehension occurred. I was smort. I should "get it."
However, later in life the ideas from books or concepts we read, discussed, and critiqued (Doestevsky,Shakespeare, sophocles etc) allowed me access to ideas in the humanities that far outweighed that initial college whiplash. So it's a trade off I would certainly make again.
You'd do just as well rolling dice, and it would be more legitimate because it wouldn't be pretending to do something it doesn't.
Can you teach yourself, broadly. Out of all the filters we have in education, this one might be the most legitimate because it maps pretty closely to lifelong curiosity and learning.
Can you teach yourself, broadly. Out of all the filters we have in education, this one might be the most legitimate.
Thank goodness I didn’t need to work so hard, but I can acknowledge what a shitty system it is.
Help me understand why these children or their parents are gunning in this manner and working like dogs in this manner, to join into and propagate such a shitty system?
Universities at least apply some meritocratic standards. If we bypass universities, there will be some other gatekeeper, it will be worse: mostly an "old boys network" and corrupt, pay-to-play advancement.
also, this grind is barely meritocratic. all these extracurricular activities show is you had a solid family supporting you. it's literally impossible for a poor kid to participate in this. they can pick up a book, OTOH. yes, it'll be harder, it'll take longer, and they won't do as well as the rich kids with test prep, but they are given the opportunity to try.
When was that? Harvard was founded in 1636.
It seems very possible to me that the managers of said system are far better than ever before and still fail to produce spectacular results.
Can you explain how that's "socially unaware" or "one-dimensional"?
There’s a reason why it’s flagged now.