This whole discussion pisses me off about my undergraduate experience even more.
I went to school wanting to learn. And learn I did. However, my grades were based on having time to put into prepping perfect answers for tests, (which had to put significant importance on minuet details, because otherwise everyone would get an A) and crafting excellent essays.
I have the intellectual ability to do both, as I demonstrated when taking a single course at a time intensively during semesters abroad or summer school, but I do not have the ability to juggle 4-6 courses at a time, work 20 hours a week to pay for the whole damn thing and still do above a B or a C.
The worst part was that the courses that I enjoyed the most and have drawn the most benefit from were constructed to be challenging in a way that would specifically prepare students for graduate school, not for general careers.
Given that going to graduate school (even a masters being nothing more than prep for a PhD) is a huge mistake (based on the discussion here and information presented at the blog that Penegrine linked to), I'm totally pissed that the entire grading scheme during my undergraduate career was based on pushing students to be better graduate school candidates, a direction that exists to support the financial needs of the academic community itself, not the actual students.
If school was about preparing you for a genuine non-academic job, the grading would be based on encouraging mastery.
Since only so many people can go to graduate school (and this is an option every undergraduate considers at least once), the grading system is designed not to encourage you to reach a certain standard, but to cull the losers who can't cut it.
Therefore, the grading system isn't designed to encourage the student's intellectually growth, but rather with the pre-established assumption that there will be successes and failures.
It sucks to pay $20K+ per year on tuition to a system that is OK with your failure, instead of feeling a responsibility for the success of all hardworking student with an acceptable IQ. (Students without the acceptable IQ shouldn't be admitted in the first place. If you are admitted, this should be the university tacitly promising to take an institutional responsibility in filling your head with knowledge, provide that you don't simply slack off).
If higher education is supposed to teach you how to think, I'd say that in today's day and age, graduating with the skills, knowledge and direction to start a small business should be a rock bottom minimum.
I went to school wanting to learn. And learn I did. However, my grades were based on having time to put into prepping perfect answers for tests, (which had to put significant importance on minuet details, because otherwise everyone would get an A) and crafting excellent essays.
I have the intellectual ability to do both, as I demonstrated when taking a single course at a time intensively during semesters abroad or summer school, but I do not have the ability to juggle 4-6 courses at a time, work 20 hours a week to pay for the whole damn thing and still do above a B or a C.
The worst part was that the courses that I enjoyed the most and have drawn the most benefit from were constructed to be challenging in a way that would specifically prepare students for graduate school, not for general careers.
Given that going to graduate school (even a masters being nothing more than prep for a PhD) is a huge mistake (based on the discussion here and information presented at the blog that Penegrine linked to), I'm totally pissed that the entire grading scheme during my undergraduate career was based on pushing students to be better graduate school candidates, a direction that exists to support the financial needs of the academic community itself, not the actual students.
If school was about preparing you for a genuine non-academic job, the grading would be based on encouraging mastery.
Since only so many people can go to graduate school (and this is an option every undergraduate considers at least once), the grading system is designed not to encourage you to reach a certain standard, but to cull the losers who can't cut it.
Therefore, the grading system isn't designed to encourage the student's intellectually growth, but rather with the pre-established assumption that there will be successes and failures.
It sucks to pay $20K+ per year on tuition to a system that is OK with your failure, instead of feeling a responsibility for the success of all hardworking student with an acceptable IQ. (Students without the acceptable IQ shouldn't be admitted in the first place. If you are admitted, this should be the university tacitly promising to take an institutional responsibility in filling your head with knowledge, provide that you don't simply slack off).
If higher education is supposed to teach you how to think, I'd say that in today's day and age, graduating with the skills, knowledge and direction to start a small business should be a rock bottom minimum.
I'm the King of Beijing!