3 ms·

No doubt, universities are not in a good place. For me, the position of the university as a societal institution is threefold: 1) Foster deep, foundational le

No doubt, universities are not in a good place. For me, the position of the university as a societal institution is threefold: 1) Foster deep, foundational learning in an interested and talented portion of the populous. 2) Fund basic research, give academia a home, and further scientific progress. 3) Act as a filtration mechanism. But I think these goals are different, and are now becoming so clearly differentiated they must be split apart. The university as an institution is probably best suited to fund research and science. Filtration mechanisms can be established with independent standardized testing and learning programs like Lambda School and OpenClassrooms etc. Deep, foundational learning is possible online, and parts of this learning could be delegated to colleges specialized in specific fields (medicine, technology, etc.). I would also expect things like community colleges to spring up for associates-degree level education and vocational training.

chrisseaton 6y ago
> But I think these goals are different, and are now becoming so clearly differentiated they must be split apart. I disagree, I think a demonstrable strength of the Anglo-Saxon university system is the integration of teaching and research. Look at countries especially in Europe that don't integrate and see how their universities suffer.
- sebmellen 6y ago
  Sure. As I said: > and parts of this learning could be delegated to colleges specialized in specific fields I envision these colleges being part of a university.
- selestify 6y ago
  In my experience in an American school, most of the professors are only interested in their research and not the teaching. The ones that were only teaching because they liked it and not doing any research were much better at it.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    But the relatively weak performance of for example French universities (split between teaching and research) compared to British, American or Swiss universities (unified) suggests that the outcome is not as you think.
chii 6y ago
> 3) Act as a filtration mechanism. which begs the question - why must university be a filtration system such that others (like employers) get to have a free-ride off of it? Presumably it's just an unintended consequence of university study and qualification - that employers don't want the expense of sorting out candidates, and that someone capable of graduating with a degree must have some level of competency. So, what if the gov't make university degree something that employers cannot discriminate with - like race or religion. If they want to ensure their candidate is capable, they can administer a test (or pay a central examination service provider for such a test). A candidate looking for jobs do not require a university degree, but do require taking this test (or have taken a prior test and show the results). This way, university can remain "pure", rather than a gateway which people pay as an entry-fee for employment.
- im3w1l 6y ago
  That's so crazy it might just work! I'm very impressed with this unorthodox idea.
- thatfrenchguy 6y ago
  Normal universities in France do this (no filtering), it comes with a bunch of issues as well, notably that special schools / programs do filter and they end up being seen as more prestigious.
- aidenn0 6y ago
  Employers don't want the liability of sorting. They are outsourcing the legal status of being non-discriminatory. If a large company were to give an IQ test to every applicant, they would get sued and asked to prove it does not discriminate against a protected class. If a large company hires only from Harvard, they just say that Harvard is non-discriminatory, so that policy is as well
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > If a large company were to give an IQ test to every applicant, they would get sued and asked to prove it does not discriminate against a protected class. If a large company hires only from Harvard, they just say that Harvard is non-discriminatory, so that policy is as well It is just as easy to prove that a pro-elite-university hiring practice has a differential impact on a variety of protected classes as one that uses an IQ test, and there's probably better evidence for lots of jobs that performance is predicted by IQ test results, to overcome the presumption of disparate impact discrimination from the differential impact. IQ tests, however, have a greater cultural awareness of the potential for illegality, which probably translates to a greater risk of an employee talking to an attorney and thus a suit being filed in the first place. Hiring from elite universities exclusively is a safer way to discriminate because there's less chance that the victims will seek redress, not because it outsources responsibility.

chrisseaton 6y ago

> But I think these goals are different, and are now becoming so clearly differentiated they must be split apart. I disagree, I think a demonstrable strength of the Anglo-Saxon university system is the integration of teaching and research. Look at countries especially in Europe that don't integrate and see how their universities suffer.

sebmellen 6y ago
Sure. As I said: > and parts of this learning could be delegated to colleges specialized in specific fields I envision these colleges being part of a university.
selestify 6y ago
In my experience in an American school, most of the professors are only interested in their research and not the teaching. The ones that were only teaching because they liked it and not doing any research were much better at it.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  But the relatively weak performance of for example French universities (split between teaching and research) compared to British, American or Swiss universities (unified) suggests that the outcome is not as you think.

chii 6y ago

> 3) Act as a filtration mechanism. which begs the question - why must university be a filtration system such that others (like employers) get to have a free-ride off of it? Presumably it's just an unintended consequence of university study and qualification - that employers don't want the expense of sorting out candidates, and that someone capable of graduating with a degree must have some level of competency. So, what if the gov't make university degree something that employers cannot discriminate with - like race or religion. If they want to ensure their candidate is capable, they can administer a test (or pay a central examination service provider for such a test). A candidate looking for jobs do not require a university degree, but do require taking this test (or have taken a prior test and show the results). This way, university can remain "pure", rather than a gateway which people pay as an entry-fee for employment.

im3w1l 6y ago
That's so crazy it might just work! I'm very impressed with this unorthodox idea.
thatfrenchguy 6y ago
Normal universities in France do this (no filtering), it comes with a bunch of issues as well, notably that special schools / programs do filter and they end up being seen as more prestigious.
aidenn0 6y ago
Employers don't want the liability of sorting. They are outsourcing the legal status of being non-discriminatory. If a large company were to give an IQ test to every applicant, they would get sued and asked to prove it does not discriminate against a protected class. If a large company hires only from Harvard, they just say that Harvard is non-discriminatory, so that policy is as well
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > If a large company were to give an IQ test to every applicant, they would get sued and asked to prove it does not discriminate against a protected class. If a large company hires only from Harvard, they just say that Harvard is non-discriminatory, so that policy is as well It is just as easy to prove that a pro-elite-university hiring practice has a differential impact on a variety of protected classes as one that uses an IQ test, and there's probably better evidence for lots of jobs that performance is predicted by IQ test results, to overcome the presumption of disparate impact discrimination from the differential impact. IQ tests, however, have a greater cultural awareness of the potential for illegality, which probably translates to a greater risk of an employee talking to an attorney and thus a suit being filed in the first place. Hiring from elite universities exclusively is a safer way to discriminate because there's less chance that the victims will seek redress, not because it outsources responsibility.