BF2S Forums Design a new college system

eleven bravo wrote:

marx had more to do with class struggle and conflict

Jay wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

Jay wrote:

So communism and socialism arent both derived from marx? News to me.

No. Only communism is "derived from marx". Perhaps it is too confusing to have systems of thought which are further down the political spectrum from one another. Black and White does it for Jay, I suppose.

You're really saying that you believe that Socialism has nothing to do with Marxism? How fucking brainwashed are you? The only people that I've ever encountered that made such a stupid claim are the people that know socialism is a dirty word in politics and wish to distance themselves from it. Where do you think socialism came from? It just sprang from the earth without other influences? Do us all a favor and stick to ee chats, ktnxbai.

Jay wrote:

That's nice. What's the difference between the two? One tries to level the playing field... and the other levels the playing field. One taxes the rich heavily in order to regress them to the mean... the other makes everyone the mean. Communism is the more extreme version or socialism. To say they are unrelated is either nitpicky or stupid, your choice.

Pochsy wrote:

Jay wrote:

That's nice. What's the difference between the two? One tries to level the playing field... and the other levels the playing field. One taxes the rich heavily in order to regress them to the mean... the other makes everyone the mean. Communism is the more extreme version or socialism. To say they are unrelated is either nitpicky or stupid, your choice.

Well Jay, based on your wonderful summaries it has become abundantly clear that you have never comprehended Marx. You seem to have the basics of Socialism down (very roughly), so you get half marks.

For a proper summary of Communism in its purest form, read the Communist Manifesto.  Short. Lucid. Basic.

Jay wrote:

Pochsy wrote:

Jay wrote:

That's nice. What's the difference between the two? One tries to level the playing field... and the other levels the playing field. One taxes the rich heavily in order to regress them to the mean... the other makes everyone the mean. Communism is the more extreme version or socialism. To say they are unrelated is either nitpicky or stupid, your choice.

Well Jay, based on your wonderful summaries it has become abundantly clear that you have never comprehended Marx. You seem to have the basics of Socialism down (very roughly), so you get half marks.

For a proper summary of Communism in its purest form, read the Communist Manifesto.  Short. Lucid. Basic.

I've already read it, thanks. Now please explain the difference to me between thermoset plastic and thermoplastic, or what the moment of inertia is of a prismatic beam, or what the sine set of a fourier series looks like. Should I make fun of you because you took a different path through college? Because that's what you're doing. Teehee you don't know how to design a drive shaft. Teehee.

Congratulations, you took a course on philosophy in college. It's going to be a real boon to you throughout your life.

Uzique wrote:

Several interesting points here, though some fairly major (mis)assumptions on the non-domestic, international ramifications of your discussion (assumptions as such because everyone seems to be taking the supremacy of US education as given truism). Plus now we’re all done lecturing Jay on the history of early socialism, I guess it would profit to turn the discussion to something else… :

Firstly, systemic financial debt is certainly a problem for you (young) guys… HOWEVER, the chief strength of US universities arguably derives from just that - the money circulation. You are world leading because of immense funding opportunities, and huge amounts of money for academic studies across the board (i.e. not just STEM, which many other money-pinched recessive countries are now focussing on at the expense of other areas of academia less profitably linked to industry).

This is also why you gain reputation and are desirable for an international corpus of prospective students - it all feeds back (though fiscally untenable, perhaps). This is also, again, why you attract world-leading academics and poach many a tired Oxbridge don and non-US post-doc: you pay very handsomely compared to the state-mandated pay-brackets here in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. Just an example: in my own academic career-path progression, it is actually far easier for me to go the States to get funding for my doctoral research than it is, statistically, here in the UK - where funding is now extremely thin (e.g. Oxford have 10 funded PhD’s per/annum for their entire English department, dealing with some 1400 applications and 160+ acceptances; Cambridge have 4; UCL have 2). I will also be accepted into just about any top US college because of a perceived and acknowledged difference in actual teaching-quality (more on that later).

Secondly, comparing your prowess on the world stage is, of course, opening your argument to the usual critiques and flaws of world/international rankings, namely: international ranking is methodologically fraught with difficulties, and often relies on qualitative and capricious stats, for e.g. 'perceived reputation' / 'brand power' (in no small part due to large circulation of research money, again). Others rely on specious detail such as 'number of alumni who are leaders of world states', or 'number of Nobel Prizes associated with'. Again, no awards for figuring out that the colleges with most financial weight will just so happen to employ (for a handsome salary) the top scientists and celebrity writers. Specious facts like this do not mirror the wider quality, at all. In fact they are completely useless when you consider that many of the finest and most elite colleges in the world don’t even have large scientific/medical/industrial schools, so therefore won’t even be playing ball for half of these distinguished prizes.

Of major importance is that international and world rankings often do not reflect domestic rankings at all: smaller elite institutions cannot compete on the big stage due to comparatively tiny student populations, endowments, and research funding (though quality will still be of a world-leading standard according to assessments and evaluations). This is the case for many of the UK's most prestigious smaller institutions (namely the 1994 group; places like York, Durham) which apparently do not compete internationally; same as many smaller US liberal arts colleges and private unis. Conversely, many large institutions with gigantic student populations and mega-millions rank on the international stage despite being decidedly second-tier in domestic tables (and also in terms of academic strength).

Thus the international and world tables often just reflect the richest and biggest universities, based half on concrete research and half on self-generated 'brand reputation'; a more nuanced comparison will show many inconsistencies, for e.g. many of the US second-tier colleges in the top100 have gigantic faculties and research budgets compared to similarly-ranked though absolutely tiny, selective unis from UK/Europe. The fact they are competing and keeping up to par clearly reflects better on the small institutions (bear this sort of relative comparison in mind always).
I mean, really, with some of these places - with the amount of money being pumped in, the number of students being pushed through, and the sheer volume of research being pumped out - you'd be more surprised if they failed to make the world top 100 (some giant US colleges would make the annual budget for most European cities look modest).

And let’s not even mention Asia when it comes to the direct-equating of academic quality with financial investment and circulation (the next 25 years of global rankings will be very interesting).

Of course all of this has nothing to do with teaching quality (the most important part of undergraduate experience; research is strictly the postgraduate domain). Which brings me neatly to my third point:

Teaching quality in the US is far from world-leading and "world dominating". Granted, you occupy centre-stage of world academia (as you'd pretty much expect, where Anglophone research and English publication is the current norm). But comparing teaching standards worldwide often exposes flaws in the US degree structure. For one, you aim for a 'breadth over depth' model, which, though more desirable in the world of employment where being 'well-rounded' is key, is actually a severe weakness in academic excellence. You cannot be a master of all things. You cannot compete against students from other world-renowned institutions that dedicate an entire 3/4 years to a deep and rigorous study of their specific area. Also not to mention that the teaching itself over here at our top schools (many of which do not rank internationally because of their small, selective size) adopt tiny collegiate and tutorial systems, where people are often in a class of 2 (Oxbridge) to 10 (not unusual in many others-) people with direct face-time with the mega-talent.

Speaking from my own experience, again, purely anecdotally: my small institution for the last year has put me in class-rooms of 3-5 or so students with the Poet Laureate of the UK (i.e. most senior and venerated poet) and many other scholars who are internationally-leading in their fields. It ranks 88th in the world and 22nd in Europe. A far cry behind the big colleges that have 5x the student population and 100x the budget (and also behind the colleges it has exchange programs and close partnerships with in the states: Yale, Amherst, NYU, etc). Though this example is by no means limited to my own personal sphere of experience: many of our top20 research institutions noted for worldwide standard of teaching and research excellence are nowhere on the world rankings - even though their teaching is regarded as the best in the world (notably, York, which has better teaching-ratings than Oxford [which maintains the enviable personal one-to-one tutorial system], and whose English department is also ranked above Oxbridge on the domestic tables - it barely scratches the world top 100!)

I am led to believe all of this is not the case in 'world-leading' US colleges, where the star academic talent that inflates its reputation to such high-ranks are largely kept at the distance of a 120-person lecture hall, or otherwise have their curricula delegated and mediated through the delivery of much-beleaguered PhD students (many of which are not much older or wiser than fresh undergraduates). Or, even worse, who are there on an Emeritus status and do zero teaching, contribute 1-2 guest lectures a year, and otherwise just generally have free reign to publish as sparingly as they wish, so long as it carries the name-tag of the institution providing their annual paycheque of course.

So, take league tables with a giant scoop of salt, and do not all-so-easily assume your 'world leading' supremacy. Undeniably major players, yes, but not quite far-and-above the leaders of the pack as you make out. In fact trends would indicate that a top-tier education from a UK institution is more valued and sought after on grad-programs in the US than your own home-grown ones: admission (i.e. research proposal acceptance) to places like Harvard and Yale is actually considered quite easy for a top-honours UK student. Winning the UK->US scholarship (Fulbright, nominally) to pay for it is the difficult part (where it falls to sheer limited availability, not academic capability). Rather interestingly, then, it would seem that the huge piles of money that your colleges (negatively and indebtedly) circulate is a large part of what keeps you afloat near the top of world rankings. This prestige is, ultimately, completely divorced from teaching quality and is based most substantively on two things: research output/quality and brand recognition - both of which are reliant on and scale with the amount of money (govt or private) being invested in the first place!

Most importantly, I would argue that a better measure of a higher-education institution's merits is the quality of its actual graduates, not rankings generated from financial data and spurious statistics that one can take objection to ad infinitum / ad nauseum. Of which US graduates are far from regarded as 'world leading' in terms of quality - not in the workplace, nor in the ivory-towers of academia (sorry to burst the American fist-pumping going on here).

A comment from a person that has witnessed both sides of the US/UK top-tier education system:

    As an American who studied in the US before undertaking her D.Phil and teaching at Oxford between 1994 and 2001, I'd like to make a few observations.
    Firstly, the amount of material studied at the undergraduate level in one's general subject area (i.e., English, history, classics, etc.) is much more thorough in the UK. While the advantage of an American education involves a broader, more comprehensive acquaintance of areas outside his/her general subject area, the corresponding disadvantage is that one obtains less knowledge within.
    In fact, on the occasions that I've shown copies of university finals to American college/uni instructors, their first remark was that British finals greatly resemble the comprehensives taken by American GRADUATE students at the end of their second year. (Comps determine whether you proceed to the Ph.D.--or not.) American instructors will also stand aghast when they are told that undergrads are expected to produce a 6000 word essay--WITHOUT supervision--in 2 weeks' time after 6 weeks of guided preparation by a tutor.
    Secondly, the manner in which student work is assessed in the UK is considerably different, with the particular distinction that examinations are not only submitted partly anonymously, with names replaced by candidate numbers, but ALSO marked by at least 2 different faculty members within the university and one outside of it. At American universities, exams and papers at are graded by the instructor teaching the class. Moreover, given the increasingly prevailing customer ethos in the US, there is far more grade inflation as well. Whereas firsts (summa cum laude) comprise about a quarter of the paper grades in Oxbridge, the equivalent in the US--an A--comprises nearly 45% of all grades.
    As such, given the level of knowledge expected for graduate study in the UK, or at least at Oxbridge, many Americans end up dropping out or being booted out--including those from the Ivies and other comparable elite universities. (I was fortunate not to be casualty!) This is a problem compounded by the fact that there is less "hand-holding" in the UK; you are expected to research and arrive at your own thesis topic independently. Sink or swim.

I will hasten to add in advance of your response that, sadly, my argument about the financials is also at the heart of your own domestic critique (viz. the 'income gap' determining educational standards). Which is quite ironic, considering that it was the foreword to your 'fuck yeah, america!' celebration of your colleges on the international stage.

Academia is very depressingly often too much about money and politics, and never nearly enough about actual intellectual/academic excellence. Always bear in mind, as well, that league tables are instruments of publicity and advertising put out by newspapers and other commercial ventures, ergo: they are more political and financial than academic. In-depth research evaluations should be your benchmark if you truly care about academic excellence.

Rather appropriately, considering my argument, a large part of the reason why I am not personally intending to send applications to Harvard/Yale/Colombia  (this year at least) is, again, back to the point of your degree structure: PhD students are required to do 2 years of preliminary taught-studies before commencing on the 3 years of their actual research-proper. Effectively I will be doing 2 more years of Master's level study before I can begin my project. Meaning that, effectively, to take advantage of your far more generous funding opportunities, I will have to repeat as many years of education on the subject as I have already just done (5) - despite being at a level to be accepted to commence PhD studies at Oxford (though unfortunately unfunded). This is, again, because intending students in the US that wish to begin research are not considered 'ready' for such a specialised and in-depth task; your undergraduate degree system supposedly does not equip students with the necessary skills and level of knowledge. (On the contrary, in the UK it is possible for a gifted and precocious student to commence a 3-year PhD immediately after their 3 year Bachelor's).


So in conclusion:
- Money and weight (and hence brand recognition and heavyweight status) - yes.
- Academic dominance and world-leadership - not necessarily so.

$0.02.   

(Source for opinions: I am an intending PhD student and have spent a vast amount of time and effort contacting academics from both UK and US institutions over the last 3-4 months to get a good, balanced idea for my own career plans. Furthermore, a large part of my intended research will be on American literature [hence the investigation of your college system from the academic-research perspective]).

tl;dr: Money may be at the root of the undergraduate student experience, contra social mobility and equality, affecting applications and admissions for young upstarts; but, pace mass-debt and general unfairness, it is also a hugely conducive part of your league-table ‘dominance’.

Ilocano wrote:

Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:

Lots of good points there from Uzique

All well and good.  Kudos for the pursuit of academia.  More power to Uzique.  We do need thinkers.

However, I'm in it for the money, so...  Perceived reputation and connections, the rankings associated with them, and the still reasonably high academic standards, are good enough for me.

Uzique wrote:

Was less about trying to 'have one over' non-academic people who don't care about actual quality... it's more about diagnosing a wider problem in the US (and to a lesser extent, the UK's) system of immense debt and general financial chicanery. Both systems run on seemingly unmaintainable systems based on private-business pricing logic. It's either remorselessly unfair for those that are poor and want fair opportunity (the "Asian family" scenario aside - I don't think an education system is healthy or running right at all if your only solution is to forfeit three generations of family toil...) or downright fiscally irresponsible at a national level. The fact that your vast money circulation has now nicely leant itself to a sense of 'international prestige' only emphasizes how inextricably linked (and damned) the whole rotten thing is. Academia should be about merit and the pursuit of knowledge: the market and its machinations have become deeply involved, however, and now academia serves only to perpetuate the iniquities associated with said-market. Idealistically, these should be separate. On a realistic level, at least, the US should try for a higher-education system that doesn't equate wealth so directly to prestige (which is sadly the prevailing trend at the moment, which says nothing of actual teaching-experience or graduate-quality).

Is it any coincidence that the two nations that top the table for 'elite' education and institutional prestige also happen to be the two countries that are rather less enviably at the bottom of the Western world's social mobility ladder? Is it also any further coincidence that these two countries have (disastrously) melded neo-liberal economics with education policy?