4 ms·

When I joined Engineering in India (1994), my state had 2000 engineering seats. 120K people wrote the entrance test for the 2K seats. Today the same state has

by kumarm 6y ago

When I joined Engineering in India (1994), my state had 2000 engineering seats. 120K people wrote the entrance test for the 2K seats. Today the same state has about 250K seats. Anyone who writes the entrance test can get into some college or other. Has the quality gone down? I would think so. But I definitely think qualified students is definitely greater than 2k even when I went to college. I would rather prefer over supply rather than shortage of educational opportunities any day.

totalZero 6y ago
To play devil's advocate... The value of an education comes as much from the group of peers (classmates who interact regarding experiences, plans, lessons, and ideas) as from the books and professors themselves. Like a critical mass of brains. If you water the group down, then the most talented cohort benefits less than if they were the only people to advance.
- fillskills 6y ago
  Looks like the parent is saying that the right answer is somewhere in between. When enough engineers can be educated without watering down the entire cohort
- aaaxyz 6y ago
  As someone who got an undergrad degree from a top 40 school and is now taking courses at a state system school accepting a lot more students, I completely agree. The difference in terms of work output and professionalism between students is massive. Presentations from other students lack depth and often fail to explain basic concept; they have very little educational value. Group work is a complete mess since a lot of people never learned how to organize themselves, have very little motivation or fail to explain their ideas properly. Simple things you usually learn in undergrad like putting a bibliography together or spell checking documents are lacking. You end up wasting huge amounts of time correcting other people's mistakes. Another big difference I've noticed is that students seem to have little interest in the area of study; none of the ones I met have non curricular side projects. There's also a lot less discussion happening outside of classrooms.
  - google234123 6y ago
    You are not hanging out with the right people then. I think you will find the top students in any random state school are just as good as at an ivy league institution. Source: I've been at both.
    - BeetleB 6y ago
      I've been at both an average school (undergrad) and a top school (grad). I somewhat agree with your parent. I don't doubt great undergrads exist in an average school, but the chances of randomly running into one are much lower. I did not run into any. I'd also disagree with the characterization of "top" students. A lot of the top students at the average school, while great at academics, were still a lot less "well rounded". They had few projects that they worked on outside of class, etc. Not that they weren't interested - just that there was not enough "critical mass" of such people for it to become natural.
      - sunstone 6y ago
        Or maybe they spend their spare time working so they can afford to stay in school.
    - aaaxyz 6y ago
      There might be some students that are just as good as the top ivy league students but in a smaller faculty (~100 students) that number is most likely closer to zero.
    - babesh 6y ago
      There are a few top students at a random state school that are just as good. The difference is that there are just many, many more good students in an Ivy League institution. Also, the Ivy League students just have a much better education. You can tell by interviewing the bad Ivy League students and noticing that at least their thinking process is structured (try to understand problem, form hypothesis, etc...) The bad students at non Ivy League level schools have no thinking process. It's saddening. You can tell that the few top students at the random state school would be even better if they had the opportunities that the Ivy League students are provided. It's much more impressive to get to third base starting from home than getting to home starting from third base. It shows independent thought, grit, and adaptability. Those aren't that common even at the Ivy League institutions. The trait most prevalent in Ivy League interviews seems to be excellence in a circumscribed area rather than general ingenuity.
- manquer 6y ago
  Value of education in a professional context comes from such things. Many professional groups such as lawyers , accountants, actuaries etc have entry systems which are not directly linked to the education itself ( BAR membership and degree in law etc). Value of education itself cannot be only quantified by the its value in a job, even a poor education is better than none. Lack of employability should not be a reason for not learning.
cocoland 6y ago
TLDR: The passion and rigor for study/education died and it shows Being from the same decade , could not agree more. It was really selection through fire (especially if you were in general category of applicants) . Not all set their sights on this degree , the later part of the decade set about this whole boom of software engineers (Y2K , eCommerce etc.) Those who didn't get in , then got into roles of lecturers in these colleges that mushroomed. The quality started going down in GP , 1/2 cooked engineers produced 1/4 cooked ones and this went on. I think what is to blame as well was the fact that the path was all too easy and clear , finish engineering , pass through some quant tests , 3 month bootcamp and lo you have your job (or in some variant of this). Attitudes changed toward this easy life. Compared to this other professions like Charted Accountants (CPA equivalent) , Actuaries (who i think are the best data scientists around) or Doctors where there is a lot more work in the first decade of one's career post undergrad , engineering was a cake walk.

by kumarm 6y ago

totalZero 6y ago

To play devil's advocate... The value of an education comes as much from the group of peers (classmates who interact regarding experiences, plans, lessons, and ideas) as from the books and professors themselves. Like a critical mass of brains. If you water the group down, then the most talented cohort benefits less than if they were the only people to advance.

fillskills 6y ago
Looks like the parent is saying that the right answer is somewhere in between. When enough engineers can be educated without watering down the entire cohort
aaaxyz 6y ago
As someone who got an undergrad degree from a top 40 school and is now taking courses at a state system school accepting a lot more students, I completely agree. The difference in terms of work output and professionalism between students is massive. Presentations from other students lack depth and often fail to explain basic concept; they have very little educational value. Group work is a complete mess since a lot of people never learned how to organize themselves, have very little motivation or fail to explain their ideas properly. Simple things you usually learn in undergrad like putting a bibliography together or spell checking documents are lacking. You end up wasting huge amounts of time correcting other people's mistakes. Another big difference I've noticed is that students seem to have little interest in the area of study; none of the ones I met have non curricular side projects. There's also a lot less discussion happening outside of classrooms.
- google234123 6y ago
  You are not hanging out with the right people then. I think you will find the top students in any random state school are just as good as at an ivy league institution. Source: I've been at both.
  - BeetleB 6y ago
    I've been at both an average school (undergrad) and a top school (grad). I somewhat agree with your parent. I don't doubt great undergrads exist in an average school, but the chances of randomly running into one are much lower. I did not run into any. I'd also disagree with the characterization of "top" students. A lot of the top students at the average school, while great at academics, were still a lot less "well rounded". They had few projects that they worked on outside of class, etc. Not that they weren't interested - just that there was not enough "critical mass" of such people for it to become natural.
    - sunstone 6y ago
      Or maybe they spend their spare time working so they can afford to stay in school.
  - aaaxyz 6y ago
    There might be some students that are just as good as the top ivy league students but in a smaller faculty (~100 students) that number is most likely closer to zero.
  - babesh 6y ago
    There are a few top students at a random state school that are just as good. The difference is that there are just many, many more good students in an Ivy League institution. Also, the Ivy League students just have a much better education. You can tell by interviewing the bad Ivy League students and noticing that at least their thinking process is structured (try to understand problem, form hypothesis, etc...) The bad students at non Ivy League level schools have no thinking process. It's saddening. You can tell that the few top students at the random state school would be even better if they had the opportunities that the Ivy League students are provided. It's much more impressive to get to third base starting from home than getting to home starting from third base. It shows independent thought, grit, and adaptability. Those aren't that common even at the Ivy League institutions. The trait most prevalent in Ivy League interviews seems to be excellence in a circumscribed area rather than general ingenuity.
manquer 6y ago
Value of education in a professional context comes from such things. Many professional groups such as lawyers , accountants, actuaries etc have entry systems which are not directly linked to the education itself ( BAR membership and degree in law etc). Value of education itself cannot be only quantified by the its value in a job, even a poor education is better than none. Lack of employability should not be a reason for not learning.

cocoland 6y ago

TLDR: The passion and rigor for study/education died and it shows Being from the same decade , could not agree more. It was really selection through fire (especially if you were in general category of applicants) . Not all set their sights on this degree , the later part of the decade set about this whole boom of software engineers (Y2K , eCommerce etc.) Those who didn't get in , then got into roles of lecturers in these colleges that mushroomed. The quality started going down in GP , 1/2 cooked engineers produced 1/4 cooked ones and this went on. I think what is to blame as well was the fact that the path was all too easy and clear , finish engineering , pass through some quant tests , 3 month bootcamp and lo you have your job (or in some variant of this). Attitudes changed toward this easy life. Compared to this other professions like Charted Accountants (CPA equivalent) , Actuaries (who i think are the best data scientists around) or Doctors where there is a lot more work in the first decade of one's career post undergrad , engineering was a cake walk.