Is university education becoming too common?

[theowne]

I was watching this program on TVO and the guest, a professor, was talking about how nowadays, many kids are simply "expected" to go to university, and that what results is that a lot of kids in these places aren't really there because they absolutely want to be, and put very little effort into their classes. What he says is that he prefers to go back to a situation where the universities were considered places for the "elite" and not everybody had to go to a university.

I notice this myself too. Only a few people I knew in my grade (not only friends, just anyone I knew) did not go to a university. "What university are you going to" was a common question, it was just expected. Granted, I went to one of the slightly better schools (SaTec), but I doubt it's highly divergent anywhere else.

What do you think about this? Should universities go back to being elite institutions for only the best?

 

[lordmandeep]

No, graduate studies, and MBA studies are now the new elite groups....

 

[PukeGreen]

My parents never went to university; few of their friends did, either. And it didn't matter. When they went into the workforce they were applying for jobs that didn't consider a degree a requirement. Back in the early 70s degrees were for doctors and lawyers and bored rich people. You could easily walk out of high school, get a blue collar job, and two years later buy a nice house in the burbs and never look back.

Now, it's different. Almost every single one of my friends and co-workers in my age (early 30s) has a degree, or at the very a least a diploma from a respectable college. The handful that don't rent basement apartments, work menial jobs and live month the month. The rest of us own houses and condos and live much more comfortably, though certainly not luxuriously.

Look at it this way: when a large percentage of your colleagues have degrees, do you want to be the only one without one? I wouldn't. It's fine to say "let's go back to when degrees were for elites only" but who wants to be the first one to try to make it without out? It's very possible, but much more difficult. If 88 of 100 applicants for a job have degrees, why would a company consider hiring one of the 12 without, unless they were cheapskates that wanted to pay well below the going rate?

The only big exception I can think of is going into a trade, but then you're spending at least as many years in apprenticeship as you would in university. Trades can pay really well, but let's face it: many trades involve long hours and hard physical work, not exactly known specialties of the video game generation.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Trades can pay really well, but let's face it: many trades involve long hours and hard physical work, not exactly known specialties of the video game generation.

It's true. I work for a major construction tools company and was visiting a housing construction site last week in Brooklin. The site manager said that he can't find good young workers for his framing teams (the guys that nail the house together), and those he does get via college co-ops are not willing to work as hard as he did when young.

 

[fiendishlibrarian]

You do *not* want to get me started on this topic...let's just say five years of working at academic libraries (York, U of T) has given me a certain perspective on this topic...




*reaches for sedatives*

 

[lordmandeep]

sometimes I wonder why did I go, however I do like it there and the possibilities of getting a job in the finance field are almost certain.

 

[Chuck]

Arguably, universities still are only for the best. In many faculties, don't even bother applying if your average is less than 85 or 90. A bigger issue is that many degrees just don't offer the job prospects that they used to because there is more competition, more grad students, and more PhDs.

Generally, the average graduate is still pretty much set so long as they are enrolled in a professional faculty and actually want to be there. Furthermore, those with a lot of drive can generally get hired regardless their degree.

 

[Benc7]

Universities have, to a large degree (no pun intended), become trade schools; people go there not to become educated but to get the "piece of paper" that says they are, so they can (hopefully) get a good job. That "piece of paper" has become devalued over the years; a job that once required a high school diploma now demands a B.A., not because the actual work requires it, but because there are so MANY B.A.'s. There's also that working class aspiration/snobbery that is at work; a "white-collar" job = good , a "blue-collar" job = bad, regardless of the money differential. A lot of people shouldn't be in university; they aren't academically inclined and go there because, well, because that's what you do. I've met some unhappy individuals who struggled through university, got their degree, and never opened a book again. As far as they ( and the world) was concerned, their "education" was over the moment they got the scroll.

 

[theowne]

Arguably, universities still are only for the best. In many faculties, don't even bother applying if your average is less than 85 or 90.

True. But I had a friend back in high school who hardly did any work, never studied, skipped many of his tests, didn't seem to understand many concepts (he was always asking for help) and wasn't exactly getting respectable marks.

He was accepted into Ryerson's engineering program.

 

[Filip]

True. But I had a friend back in high school who hardly did any work, never studied, skipped many of his tests, didn't seem to understand many concepts (he was always asking for help) and wasn't exactly getting respectable marks.

He was accepted into Ryerson's engineering program.

Some universities are more prestigious than others...

 

[afransen]

Even if he was accepted, I doubt he made it through unless he picked up his socks. I don't know about other programs/Faculties, but the one I was enrolled in had certainly lowered standards, even while I was a student. On the other hand, people who weren't at least somewhat dedicated fell to the wayside.

I think if university were to become less necessary, we'd need high school to separate the wheat from the chaff earlier. As it is, it is glorified babysitting for teenage troublemakers. High school does very little to instill critical thinking skills. It also fails completely at motivating understanding of some subjects, not least mathematics. I studied math not because I thought it was useful/practical when I graduated, but because I enjoyed it. When you tell people you study mathematics, the only question they ask is, "So, you want to teach?"

 

[PukeGreen]

True. But I had a friend back in high school who hardly did any work, never studied, skipped many of his tests, didn't seem to understand many concepts (he was always asking for help) and wasn't exactly getting respectable marks.

He was accepted into Ryerson's engineering program.

Ah, any chance to slag Ryerson. My grades were a heck of a lot higher than that and I had to work damn hard to make it through my program there; the vast majority (more than 75%) of the people who started my program with me either dropped out or failed out before finishing. Those of us who finished have all done very well since, career wise.

If your buddy was really that poor of a student, I image he either smartened up or dropped out; Ryerson may not have the "prestige" of some of the older university, but it is sure no easy ride, at least in the science programs.

 

[theowne]

the vast majority (more than 75%) of the people who started my program with me either dropped out or failed out before finishing.

That's kind of the whole point. Why would 75% of the students drop out? Why doesn't Ryerson raise its standards higher? Why do they make it so that all those kids knew before they entered that a university program isn't something that any random guy who passed Physics should be taking? In other words, back to the initial point of the professor on the TVO program....

 

[PukeGreen]

That's kind of the whole point. Why would 75% of the students drop out? Why doesn't Ryerson raise its standards higher? Why do they make it so that all those kids knew before they entered that a university program isn't something that any random guy who passed Physics should be taking? In other words, back to the initial point of the professor on the TVO program....

Absolutely. There was a huge disconnect between what was required to get accepted, and what was required to succeed. But I've taken courses at U of T as well, and noticed the same phenomenon. I think much of the problem lies with the low standards in our high schools.

My objection is simply that I don't think this phenomenon is at all specific to Ryerson, so I felt a need to defend my alma mater, as anyone would: after nearly suffering a nervous breakdown to get through my program, I naturally bristle when people infer that Ryerson is somehow an "easy route" to a degree, though I see now that was not really your intent.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Professional programs are one thing, but most students are in arts/sciences program...and a huge number of these kids should not be there (some because the jobs they're aiming for should not require university, others because they're dolts and do not deserve to be there). I'd say enrollment should generally be cut back by a third or more.