3 ms·
I feel like you’re disagreeing with a pointlessly weak version of the comment you’re replying to. It seems a bit like you are describing university as somethin
by dan-robertson 6y ago
I feel like you’re disagreeing with a pointlessly weak version of the comment you’re replying to.
It seems a bit like you are describing university as something only about learning and ignoring the social aspects of it. I strongly disagree.
Firstly let me say that what you have written implies that university merely puts you through some lectures (and maybe some exams and gives you a bit of paper at the end), and you complain that you could learn things better yourself. It would be cynical to think that university is just a book but worse yet necessary for the credential and I will assume that this is not what you think.
As universities are different, let me say what teaching mine provided to frame what I will write below. We began with everyone taking the same courses and over later years there was more choice. Teaching was done with lectures, occasional small group workshops, homework, and 1-on-2 sessions going over that homework. Attendance to lectures (or other teaching) was not required although it was encouraged and assessment was done in exams which included questions from all courses so one didn’t need to commit to certain courses in particular.
While self study was important I think the two key things provided by the university were the small group teachings which gave expert feedback, and discussion with one’s peers which provided non-expert feedback, good sources of inspiration and ideas for things to try, and discussions to build a better understanding. I think this aspect would be hardest to replicate remotely.
The other social aspect was also important: unlike school, you’re no longer surrounded by people who don’t really want to be there and it is an environment where people are particularly similar without all having the same goal. If you go to a sports club, social interactions will be mostly dominated by the interest in the sport. I don’t think it’s a good substitute for socialising with students of other subjects at university.
The least important social aspect was going to lectures although I think it provides a more informal setting than a book to see how the sausage is made (or rather to watch it being made on the blackboard in front of you.)
- ascar 6y ago> I feel like you’re disagreeing with a pointlessly weak version of the comment you’re replying to. No, I'm disagreeing witht the one-sidedness of the GPs comment. I don't disagree that the socialising aspect of university is good for *some* (or to some degree even for everyone). I do disagree that it's something that fits *everyone at all times*. That is why I finished my comment with the outlook that every student has the option to choose what is best for him/her. Reality is, especially before covid, that remote learning and self-studying had avoidable disadvantages, because it wasn't a first class citizen and I really hope it remains a first class citizen, while in-person studying is still available for everyone who likes to use it. > It would be cynical to think that university is just a book I don't think you learn how to learn or how to live from reading a book. I do however think you do that throughout university. You have a certain curriculum, you have certain goals that you chose willingly and you have to figure yourself out how to learn them, but also how to motivate yourself and often also how to go through life without your parents. It's this unstructuredness and self-governance that I really appreciate about university. Once you start working, your life is much more structured and externally motivated than during university. > unlike school, you’re no longer surrounded by people who don’t really want to be there and it is an environment where people are particularly similar without all having the same goal. In computer science undergrad I experienced that a lot of my peers were not actually intereted in the engineering, in the building part of things, but that they chose the field because of the career outlook and the money. It wasn't particular interesting to work with them and like another commenter said I also did feel they slowed me down. After the first years I tried my best to choose peers that were interested in the engineering for all group work. Things aren't black and white. That's also why I said having the opportunity to choose on any given day is great. I'm not arguing against in-person class and socialising. I'm arguing for choice! For opportunities! If someone thinks 2 in-person days at university are enough, in an ideal world he should have the option to self-study remotely the remaining three days and not be forced to be at campus just because some think it's best for him. Figuring out how you work best youself as an individual is an integral part of the experience and if you aren't given enough choice, independence, freedom, you can't really figure that out. Finally, because of the flexibility my university provided, I was able to work up to 2 full days (legally up to 20 hours, in reality I did like 14-16) per week. Not in some unrelated job, but as a junior/student software engineer building and shipping production products together with senior engineers. So, I could also socialize and learn from more senior peers, while earning some additional money. This was, at least at my university, rather common among the software engineering focused students and in addition to a possible summer internship. This might also not be right for everyone, but it just shows there are a lot of different paths that all can be successful and it highly depends on the individual. Arguing in-person university is best for everyone and that the socialising is indispensable for everyone is missing the point.