Ian Butler wrote:
Secondly, No disrespect, but American colleges are easier than a lot of European ones(depends on what country, though).
I think that's a rather broad statement to make. There is a problem with the subjective nature by which you are measuring.
For example, we have institutions like MIT, which is most probably a fairly difficult school (though I have never studied there, simply by reputation I am making this judgement). Is every American university an MIT? no. But I would contend that not every British university is an Oxford.
I think it's unfair to slag off on an institution because you don't agree with an alums politics. It's like Romney supporters whining that Obama has a law degree from Harvard, conveniently ignoring the fact that Romney himself has a law degree from Harvard.
I am quite proud of California's higher education system. Something like 60% of my uni's student body are first generation college students. My parents were first generation college students who went through the system, in fact, of my dad's siblings, all went to college and got good jobs even though they grew up on one lower middle class income. California State University at San Bernadino, or in Fullerton, or in Stanislaus are not going to be Oxfords, but its worked for us. And the University of California system has some rather well known campuses. Berkeley, San Diego, Los Angeles, Davis, San Francisco. I would argue that those aren't names to be sniffed at and that a great many important accomplishments emerge from these schools on a fairly regular basis. 37 Nobel Laureates are on the payroll in the UC system, and that's not bad. Throw into contention a few more, like Stanford and Cal Poly and there is a world class academic tier here, and that's only in one state.
Well, of course, not all unies are the same, that's true.
And I don't know the organization of the USA, maybe the universities are run by the states and therefor some states do much better at it then others, don't know about that.
I just based my opinion on some people I know that studied here and in America and all of them said it was a lot more difficult here (especially the scientific courses), but maybe they just studied the wrong universities Edited by Ian Butler on 27-10-2012 08:21
I would think that the accomplishments of the former students and university researchers would count more for a schools credibility than difficulty. On it's own, Berkeley has discovered 16 chemical elements, which is more than any other university in the world. Number 97 on the periodic table is Berkelium. There have been 71 Nobel Laureates associated with Berkeley, and there are even designated parking places for them. The sitting governor of the state, the sitting US Energy Secretary, Steve Wozniak, The crown prince of Norway, Alex Morgan (the babe from the US Olympic Soccer team), the co-founder of Intel, the Executive Chairman of Google, the very very famous and well respected Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who handed down the decision on Brown v. Board of Education Earl Warren, all alums. Robert Oppenheimer was on the faculty until he was called away to build the first atom bomb, Robert Reich is currently on the faculty and was the Secretary of Labor under Clinton.
One of my professors taught there as well, and also worked in the European Commission, so even the lesser campuses get good talent. At my old Junior College I had a professor who had worked for the CIA, did research at the NPGS at Monterrey during the cold war, and taught at one of the more prestigious UCs before going into a state of semi-retirement(which is how we got him).
Berkeley is a school with real gravitas and getting in certainly isn't easy (believe me, I've tried 3 times, once out of high school, and twice in college). And since it's a public school, merit is the primary decider of whether one gets in.
Private schools are more likely to give a spot to the rich kid. I had a friend who got in to Stanford, partly because he was a decent student, and partly because his father ponied up to build a new wing to a building.
Not to defend the rich kids who get into Ivy League schools, but they seem to make something of themselves on a regular basis. JFK, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, the Bush family, Bill Gates, and that's just Harvard. The lack of money isn't a hindrance either. If you can't afford it, but earn a spot you tend not to have to pay for it. I have a friend from a big family. 4 of his siblings got into Ivy League colleges, and they certainly aren't a rich family. Other not very rich former Harvard kids include Ralph Waldo Emerson, John Adams, John Hancock, Mark Zuckerberg, Ban Ki Moon, Henry David Thoreau, and of course, Obama.
American Universities got some serious hops in the world of international pissing contests.
Okay, I apologize, I got it wrong I was mostly thinking of those Private schools where the rich kids graduate with straight A's, and it ain't because they're so smart
Though I still believe that on Mathematics and Innovation, Europe is still king
As I see it, the situation in USA regarding Universities is roughly the same as in every other country; there are a few top-notch universities, but a whole lot of "sub par" ones.
Times Higher Education (THE) have a ranking of all the best universities in the world. It was published about a month ago and of the institutions on the top 10, 7 of them are from the US.
Top 10:
1. Cal Tech (US)
2. Oxford (UK)
3. Stanford (US)
4. Harvard US)
5. Massachusetts (US)
6. Princeton (US)
7. Cambridge (UK)
8. Imperial College London (UK)
9. Berkely (US)
10. Chicago (US)
The top list is filled with either the US or the UK, the only prominent entries from other nations are "EHT Zürich (12.place), Toronto (21. place) and Tokyo (27. place).
Yeah, but I don't believe all these lists and statistic investigations. 99% of the time it's bullshit, badly calculated, bad parameters to come to the result etc. Don't trust those things too much
Ian Butler wrote:
Yeah, but I don't believe all these lists and statistic investigations. 99% of the time it's bullshit, badly calculated, bad parameters to come to the result etc. Don't trust those things too much
I'm the same. Usually these lists focus on stuff, that are not really related to good education. As an example my Uni have cut down on teachings to spend more money on things to improve the ranking. Result: Falling quality of the candidates...
If this ranking were to believe, my univertity ranks at 110... In other polls however it ranks in the top100 and in one as high as 60. Do you see how useless these polls are cactus-jack?
In these polls they only evaluate only one set of criteria, such as research efforts. Another popular category is to evaluate the teaching body or the student satisfaction. There is also a poll that ranks colleges after their facilities on campus including sports and teaching facilities as well as the library. Non of these polls can accurately depict a "rank" for a university as they dont cover all the categories named above!
BTW: My university, Trinity College Dublin, gets great annual reviews when it comes to the facilities and our name. For the facilities we get great points due to our library which gets a copy of every book that is published in the UK or US! That boosted with our name and our historical background makes us rank in the top 70 when it comes to facilities and the stupidest category of all (The overall, which includes random figures every year that are not properly researched and just thrown in). Just because we are Cambridge's sister university we get a hugh boost in the prestige category of that OVR-Poll which claims to be the most accurate, but it aint. I remember 1 year they had the whole student body of UCD compared to the amount of students earning Scholar titles in trinity every year in the same column (we are talking about 21.300 UCD Students and 180 TCD students) and claimed thats why trinity is better eventhough there was no statistical basis for this...
Enough with my rant about College rankings...
Lets talk about the rise of Golden Dawn in Greece. If the EU doesn't make a decision on the Greece matter, the inevitable will happen and Greece evolve into a dictatorship. I recite from a comment I made on facebook in relation to a guardian article, cause i am really not bothered writing the whole thing again!
Not that I never expected an artile like that... It seems probable as it coincides with the general political tndencies... Whenever a country is in misery, a drastic increase in support for rightwing exremists to be seen in that country... Eventually, this will naturally result in a form of dictatorship (either single paty or single person)... And im not speaking of the historical examples, but rather about germany in the sixties when the boom got into a slump. Immediately the NPD got a drastic increase in votes again....
here is the article...
Edited by miggi133 on 27-10-2012 12:14
Ian Butler wrote:
Yeah, but I don't believe all these lists and statistic investigations. 99% of the time it's bullshit, badly calculated, bad parameters to come to the result etc. Don't trust those things too much
Main parameter is money, so it can´t be completely wrong. Money means better facilities, more stuff and thus better overall education.
But the focus should be more on the teaching itself, so that universities don´t spend money on other to improve in the rankings while the teaching gets worse.
My universites is 48th overall and 42nd in the subject ranking. And the faculty just spent 30 million dollars to recontruct the main building and has more stuff than ever before.
miggi133 wrote:
Lets talk about the rise of Golden Dawn in Greece. If the EU doesn't make a decision on the Greece matter, the inevitable will happen and Greece evolve into a dictatorship. I recite from a comment I made on facebook in relation to a guardian article, cause i am really not bothered writing the whole thing again!
Not that I never expected an artile like that... It seems probable as it coincides with the general political tndencies... Whenever a country is in misery, a drastic increase in support for rightwing exremists to be seen in that country... Eventually, this will naturally result in a form of dictatorship (either single paty or single person)... And im not speaking of the historical examples, but rather about germany in the sixties when the boom got into a slump. Immediately the NPD got a drastic increase in votes again....
2. Drastic problems require drastic solutions. At least that seems to be how people think in a crisis, and then they look towards the extremists (on one wing or another). The ones that weren't part of creating the problem (since they were marginal at that time), and in many cases the ones that will keep telling people it's not their fault. It is all because of the European Union/gypsies/jews/muslims/...
Ian Butler wrote:
Yeah, but I don't believe all these lists and statistic investigations. 99% of the time it's bullshit, badly calculated, bad parameters to come to the result etc. Don't trust those things too much
Main parameter is money, so it can´t be completely wrong. Money means better facilities, more stuff and thus better overall education.
But the focus should be more on the teaching itself, so that universities don´t spend money on other to improve in the rankings while the teaching gets worse.
My universites is 48th overall and 42nd in the subject ranking. And the faculty just spent 30 million dollars to recontruct the main building and has more stuff than ever before.
This. It should be about teaching and student satisfactory (as in, quality of lectures AND Tutorials, quality of Student life etc.) and it should not be focused solely on teaching. Neither should it solely be based on money nor inffrastructure. But there is yet to be a poll that does not heavily focus on those categories!
Ian Butler wrote:
Yeah, but I don't believe all these lists and statistic investigations. 99% of the time it's bullshit, badly calculated, bad parameters to come to the result etc. Don't trust those things too much
Main parameter is money, so it can´t be completely wrong. Money means better facilities, more stuff and thus better overall education.
Depends what you spend them on. You can spend billions on some fancy physics equipment for a prestigious scientist. That doesn't necessarily mean that the students as a whole get better education. Especially not if the money to fund prestige project are partly found by reducing teaching time and teaching facilities...
Ian Butler wrote:
Yeah, but I don't believe all these lists and statistic investigations. 99% of the time it's bullshit, badly calculated, bad parameters to come to the result etc. Don't trust those things too much
Main parameter is money, so it can´t be completely wrong. Money means better facilities, more stuff and thus better overall education.
Depends what you spend them on. You can spend billions on some fancy physics equipment for a prestigious scientist. That doesn't necessarily mean that the students as a whole get better education. Especially not if the money to fund prestige project are partly found by reducing teaching time and teaching facilities...
That´s why i wrote that the rankings should rather focus on the education itself, which would make them think twice about fundind some project instead of keeping the teaching quality. But it also shows how important money is because some universities can pay for projects and teaching, some cannot. Guess which usually are better in rankings...
Ian Butler wrote:
Well, of course, not all unies are the same, that's true.
And I don't know the organization of the USA, maybe the universities are run by the states and therefor some states do much better at it then others, don't know about that.
I just based my opinion on some people I know that studied here and in America and all of them said it was a lot more difficult here (especially the scientific courses), but maybe they just studied the wrong universities
I'm British but have studied as an undergrad in both the US and the UK. It was widely acknowledged when I was over there that the standard of undergraduate education was lower than in the UK. I was explicitly advised by one Professor to take graduate level courses as these would offer the best parallel with my studies back home (I would have been a final year student if I'd still been in the UK).
However, it was also generally acknowledged that postgraduate education in the two countries was broadly comparable. A lot of it is to do with the organisation of US education. British students get a sort of preview of university with sixth form whereas US students go directly from high school to uni.
As regards university rankings, these are usually determined by research and don't directly relate to the quality of undergraduate teaching.
Yeah, don't think the results make much sense...
Europe would have quite bad universities then...
First dutch university is at 64(although there are many in the range 60-80) and university where I'm most likely to go is at 89...
I never said that the list I linked to was THE list, it's only A list. There are several of them, but I think that one is among the more prestigous ones.
What you choose to look into will determine the result, but there is a clear trend. If Cal Tech is nr. 1 on one list it probably wont be nr. 80 on another.
There's a fine line between "psychotherapist" and "psycho the rapist"
cactus-jack wrote: I never said that the list I linked to was THE list, it's only A list. There are several of them, but I think that one is among the more prestigous ones.
What you choose to look into will determine the result, but there is a clear trend. If Cal Tech is nr. 1 on one list it probably wont be nr. 80 on another.
No, that is surely true. but as my example regarding my college quickly explained is, that places can vary up to 40 places between different lists...
So Cal Tech might not be No.80 in another lis, but it could well be ranked in the 40's... And so could any other university if you change some of the criteria!
And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. I was only trying to prove a point to those who ment the US education system was subpar compared to Europe. Regardless of which criteria you use, it's "common knowledge" that many of the institutions in the US and UK are amongst the best in the world.
Sure, if you look at it as a whole than nations such as the US which has a huge amount of universities will come out badly. Here in Norway there are only 8 universities (it's actually just 4, the other ones are a university in name) so statisticly we probably won't do to bad.
There's a fine line between "psychotherapist" and "psycho the rapist"
