4 ms·

While I somewhat agree… For people who disagree with this, I ask them the following: “Think of the average person in generation / group <insert>. Would you wa

While I somewhat agree… For people who disagree with this, I ask them the following: “Think of the average person in generation / group <insert>. Would you want them defending you on trial for murder? How about fixing your break lines?” Young 20 somethings can do that today, but far fewer than a generation ago. Regardless, I actually think it’s far simpler. If I pay $60k/year, I can’t fail out. If the uni does fail me, they lose future revenue from donations and potentially my enrollment for future years.

rad_gruchalski 4y ago
> If I pay $60k/year, I can’t fail out. That's some serious entitlement right here. Why can't you fail? What's the point of education then when all one needs to do is to pay some money and do their time?
- what-the-grump 4y ago
  /s missing? Isn’t that what education is? Paying someone money and putting in the work?
  - cassianoleal 4y ago
    Of course not. You still need to actually learn the subjects and pass the exams. Putting in the work is not enough. The people who fail usually should fail. When I was doing CompSci most people would fail discrete maths 2-3 times until they managed to get it. It's a good thing that they failed the first few times. I don't see how that's bad, they didn't understand it at first.
  - rad_gruchalski 4y ago
    > Paying someone money and putting in the work? Yes. That's what it is. But it isn't "paying someone money and feeling entitled to finish because I paid the money".
    - what-the-grump 4y ago
      So these students, and I know plenty, that went to NYU. Paid the money, put in the work, and pass every class getting B's & A's, except orgo. Well orgo is hard... no not really, its a first - second year class? The students are setup to fail. Do I think the professor is the root issue, no just look at replies in the this thread, 'its been that way for 30 years, blah blah'. I am paying you to teach me orgo, not to fail me at orgo. Teach it in a passable way and then test the students outside of the class, like the MCAT or LSAT where you are not commingling the selection criteria on the whims of a professor. Is this really that hard to see?
- voisin 4y ago
  Not OP but if a huge portion of students fail a course tangential to the ultimate practice for which they are in the program, and this comes midway through the program so those students are now 10s or even 100s of thousands in debt / opportunity cost, then wouldn’t you chalk it up to a university’s failure to either (a) choose students for the program more capable of succeeding in the program or (b) teaching in a manner that doesn’t lead to so many failures, or (c) some combination of the two? If one student fails, it’s that student’s failure. But at some point, once (x)% of the class fails, it is a systemic failure of the institution itself.
  - fallingknife 4y ago
    The problem is that universities have come to see them selves as agents of egalitarianism whose job it is to educate the masses and lift people out of poverty. But they derive all of their actual economic value from being an elitist weed out process for who gets high paying jobs. These two functions cannot coexist.
    - voisin 4y ago
      I don’t know if either of your stated functions are true or just a cynical view of them, but regardless, if the explicit objective is to take in students and teach them certain things so out the other end they can perform certain tasks to certain standards, then my statements above are accurate.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  I'd say you can't fail because student loan debt can't be discharged in bankruptcy.
- rcxdude 4y ago
  I think the point is that if education wants to be selective it should not be catastrophic for that that it does not select (i.e. it should be cheaper). Especially when the cost (and revenue) of education is so high it creates all the wrong incentives and mindsets.
iakov 4y ago
>If I pay $60k/year, I can’t fail out. Can't fail? Not even on exams? So a mere sum of 180k USD guarantees a degree? I hope not.
- lettergram 4y ago
  “I can’t fail” Not “I’m guaranteed a degree” Im saying once you fail out, $180k in debt, most peoples lives are effectively over. You have to go get a job making $40k-60k a year and pay $10-12k per year for the next 10-20 years. After taxes, food, housing.. you’ll basically have to live with your parents, will have trouble starting a family, etc
  - 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
    If you managed to make it into medical school you're not a dummy just by failing organic chem. You just suck at organic chem. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that these students are smart enough to figure out something else. Except maybe the ones that signed the petition.
    - the_third_wave 4y ago
      It depends on how you made your way into med school. If you made it there on grades, probably. If your were quotaed in, maybe not.
    - lettergram 4y ago
      If you fail organic chem you can’t make it into medical school. It’s an undergraduate class.
      - 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
        Sure, whatever. I’m saying, you can study something else.
- fallingknife 4y ago
  In the US, basically yes. The liberal arts degrees had been dumbed down to the point where nobody ever failed a generation ago, so people who failed out of STEM weed out classes just majored in history or something. But now the market has figured that out, so there is a massive value premium on STEM degrees, and shifting to a history major is no longer a viable option, which is why there is now pressure to dumb down STEM degrees.

rad_gruchalski 4y ago

> If I pay $60k/year, I can’t fail out. That's some serious entitlement right here. Why can't you fail? What's the point of education then when all one needs to do is to pay some money and do their time?

what-the-grump 4y ago
/s missing? Isn’t that what education is? Paying someone money and putting in the work?
- cassianoleal 4y ago
  Of course not. You still need to actually learn the subjects and pass the exams. Putting in the work is not enough. The people who fail usually should fail. When I was doing CompSci most people would fail discrete maths 2-3 times until they managed to get it. It's a good thing that they failed the first few times. I don't see how that's bad, they didn't understand it at first.
- rad_gruchalski 4y ago
  > Paying someone money and putting in the work? Yes. That's what it is. But it isn't "paying someone money and feeling entitled to finish because I paid the money".
  - what-the-grump 4y ago
    So these students, and I know plenty, that went to NYU. Paid the money, put in the work, and pass every class getting B's & A's, except orgo. Well orgo is hard... no not really, its a first - second year class? The students are setup to fail. Do I think the professor is the root issue, no just look at replies in the this thread, 'its been that way for 30 years, blah blah'. I am paying you to teach me orgo, not to fail me at orgo. Teach it in a passable way and then test the students outside of the class, like the MCAT or LSAT where you are not commingling the selection criteria on the whims of a professor. Is this really that hard to see?
voisin 4y ago
Not OP but if a huge portion of students fail a course tangential to the ultimate practice for which they are in the program, and this comes midway through the program so those students are now 10s or even 100s of thousands in debt / opportunity cost, then wouldn’t you chalk it up to a university’s failure to either (a) choose students for the program more capable of succeeding in the program or (b) teaching in a manner that doesn’t lead to so many failures, or (c) some combination of the two? If one student fails, it’s that student’s failure. But at some point, once (x)% of the class fails, it is a systemic failure of the institution itself.
- fallingknife 4y ago
  The problem is that universities have come to see them selves as agents of egalitarianism whose job it is to educate the masses and lift people out of poverty. But they derive all of their actual economic value from being an elitist weed out process for who gets high paying jobs. These two functions cannot coexist.
  - voisin 4y ago
    I don’t know if either of your stated functions are true or just a cynical view of them, but regardless, if the explicit objective is to take in students and teach them certain things so out the other end they can perform certain tasks to certain standards, then my statements above are accurate.
hotpotamus 4y ago
I'd say you can't fail because student loan debt can't be discharged in bankruptcy.
rcxdude 4y ago
I think the point is that if education wants to be selective it should not be catastrophic for that that it does not select (i.e. it should be cheaper). Especially when the cost (and revenue) of education is so high it creates all the wrong incentives and mindsets.

iakov 4y ago

>If I pay $60k/year, I can’t fail out. Can't fail? Not even on exams? So a mere sum of 180k USD guarantees a degree? I hope not.

lettergram 4y ago
“I can’t fail” Not “I’m guaranteed a degree” Im saying once you fail out, $180k in debt, most peoples lives are effectively over. You have to go get a job making $40k-60k a year and pay $10-12k per year for the next 10-20 years. After taxes, food, housing.. you’ll basically have to live with your parents, will have trouble starting a family, etc
- 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
  If you managed to make it into medical school you're not a dummy just by failing organic chem. You just suck at organic chem. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that these students are smart enough to figure out something else. Except maybe the ones that signed the petition.
  - the_third_wave 4y ago
    It depends on how you made your way into med school. If you made it there on grades, probably. If your were quotaed in, maybe not.
  - lettergram 4y ago
    If you fail organic chem you can’t make it into medical school. It’s an undergraduate class.
    - 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
      Sure, whatever. I’m saying, you can study something else.
fallingknife 4y ago
In the US, basically yes. The liberal arts degrees had been dumbed down to the point where nobody ever failed a generation ago, so people who failed out of STEM weed out classes just majored in history or something. But now the market has figured that out, so there is a massive value premium on STEM degrees, and shifting to a history major is no longer a viable option, which is why there is now pressure to dumb down STEM degrees.