The de-intellectualization of Canadian universities

IronDuke

Ancient Mariner
I’m marking papers from a Canadian history course. It’s at the 2nd year level, but the quality of some of them seems to be what one would expect from grade IX or so.
I keep saying people this incompetent don’t belong in university; they’re dumbing down the content and critical thinking skills which can be taught. The value of an undergraduate education is getting increasingly diminished, and nobody is going to benefit from it in the long run.

I think the problem stems from people seeing a university degree as a qualification for a job rather than an endeavor for its own sake. Moreover, people seem to think everyone has a RIGHT to a post-secondary education at a university. Too many people in Canada try to go to university, and it hurts everyone. The traditional trades are starving for people, and the education & practical training provided by colleges and trade schools is seen as worthless by elitist asses who think the ability to buy a Four Year degree and get a white collar job somehow makes them a better person.

Let’s face it: classroom settings just aren’t for everyone, and if you can’t read and write effectively you have no business being in university (and let’s not use that excuse “I’m in the sciences….writing isn’t important!” It is. If you can’t understand the rules which govern the English language, how’re you going to understand the laws of physics or the theories of evolution? How will you communicate the results of your experiments…I could go on.)

Unfortunately, the realities of Canadian politics make these ill-suited students necessary for the continuance of university. Our society is so anti-intellectual selfishly egalitarian and individualistic that governments take pride in cutting back funding to universities. They argue that it’s not “fair” to spend money only on the select few who study at that level, instead using the funds to “benefit all Canadians.” This, of course, ignores the fact that there is a direct correlation between the overall standard of living in a country and the quality of university education which is provided.

As a result of these cutbacks, especially in the mid 1990’s, universities have had to seek alternative funding. Most of this, of course, comes from students. Tuition levels have skyrocketed, to the point when some of the most promising students I know have had to drop out for a year or two at a time just to make enough money to continue their studies. Universities have also expanded the number of students they let in far beyond a rate which reflects population growth. Therefore, students who really don’t belong here have been accepted for admission as long as they bring their yummy tuition fees with them. As one would expect, the proportional increase has meant we’re getting an overall lower quality – we can’t be as picky anymore because we need those tuition dollars!

The net result of all this is that incompetent students come to university and pay their thousands of dollars of tuition fees to sit in the relatively cheap-to-run first and second year courses (lectures with 100+ students and few lab/seminar classes, for example). They tend to be “weeded” out by the time they get to 3rd or 4th year, when the courses are more specialized and therefore most costly to run, but the  overall quality of the introductory courses is diminished by the presence of people not suited for an academic setting (thus hurting the people who have real potential). So the university has a year or two of tuition fees, but the student has nothing to show for it and has to figure out what he is going to do with his life now that he’s realized the university which accepted him a few years ago did so under false pretences.

*breathes*

Sorry folks, I needed to vent.
Once I'm done, I'll share some of the "nuggets of wisdom" I've collected from the worst of these assignments.
 
And you think it's any different elsewhere? Mate, you're basically describing the situation in Germany.
 
I thought tuitions were fairly low in Germany, though (like around $200 USD per semester). Of course, I'm usually wrong about such things.
 
€ 585.
But that doesn't change the fact that universities here are crap and I usually wonder what the students are actually doing there.
 
Comforting? hardly, more like scary. I've always looked up to Europe for having higher academic standards than American/Canadian universities where students with enough money can in effect "buy" their degree.
 
It's a similar situation in Sweden. University is free here, you only pay for literature and the regular bills everybody has for rent, electricity and so on. Higher education is available for everybody who has the marks required to take the course in question. There are a few general qualifications, but other than that.
I hate sounding elitist, but the situation has become really saddening. When I worked as a lecturer at Halmstad University and gave out assignments where the students were to write a paper on 1-2 pages on a subject, I usually had to return 10-20 % ungraded. I wrote a short message: "I can't read this or understand what it is you're trying to say!". The students are 19+ and can't form a coherent sentence if their life depended on it. When I graded an exam, a student in her mid-30s was furious because she didn't pass. I told her that I couldn't see the right answer in her writing. She told me "I meant this and that". Maybe so, but it didnt' say it, so how could I pass her when she was wrong? She was furious with me, that I didn't understand what she meant but didn't wright. And this was a grown-up woman and mother of 2 children?! The french sociologer Bourdieux talked about the inflations of exams, when too many graduate from higher education the worth of an exam drops. I think he also talked about the quality dropping when too many study and the universities, which in Sweden get their money from the government based on the amount of students that pass the course, i.e after the course is finished. That puts pressure on the teaching staff that as many as possible must pass. How do we do that? By lowering the thresholds...

Sorry, I'm ranting, but I find it interesting that the situation seems to be similar in at least three different countries (Canada, Germany and Sweden) in spite of the different systems. Are people more stupid than 20 years ago? :halo:
 
Things are the same -actually worse- in Greece.  You see,  almost everyone gets to the last school grade.  Which means that most of the young population in Greece wants to get into university.  Of course,  not all manage to get in,  but most do,  even if they're not qualified.  For example,  a few years ago there were students that got into German literature school,  or Math school with a 3 out of 20. 

So,  this pretty much shows that there is a similar situation in Greece.  But,  what's even worse,  our universities aren't as organized as in the other countries.  So,  even if the quality of students is low in your countries,  at least there is a much more manageable situation.  In our universities on the other hand,  students can do what they want,  most of them rarely (extremely rarely) go to the universities (they sometimes don't even know who their teachers are!). 

I'm not sure though,  whether the teachers lower their standards,  or to what extent.  Usually these low class students end up in some private university,  after they've spent a considerable amount of their parents' money (yeah,  we don't like to work a lot).  This is what makes me believe/hope that university degrees in Greece have some quality...

Great times don't you think?  :yey:
 
There was something in the news recently here in England about making it compulsory for all children to stay in school until the age of 18 (currently it's 16). I find this ridiculous considering that some people just aren't academic, and find school a complete waste of time. It's made worse by the British educational system, in which nearly all the subjects taught at school are academic rather than vocational. Some people are not suited to staying at school, and would much prefer to learn a trade, or just get a job at an earlier age. It's really all for the sake of statistics, so the government can say "so-and-so% of children are now leaving school with 3 A-levels etc."

And of course, the situation in universities is the same as everywhere else.
 
Anomica said:
Sorry, I'm ranting, but I find it interesting that the situation seems to be similar in at least three different countries (Canada, Germany and Sweden) in spite of the different systems. Are people more stupid than 20 years ago? :halo:

That's an easy one... Yes, people are dumber than 20 years and even 150 years ago. There was a time when Latin was required of someone taking higher education, now people don't even give a shit about basic literature like Shakespeare, Cervantes or even Greek Mythology.

But going back to what Duke said. I don't think the problem is people wanting a degree, but industry, the employers, demanding their employees have it. Everyone wants more money and if a degree is going to give them that they'll jump through the hoops to get it.

I was tutoring this guy earlier in the semester, a man in his late 30's telling me he wanted a change in his life. He had been working sales ever since he graduated high school and has NEVER had a job that made less than 80,000 dollars a year. Sounds Nice doesn't it? 80,000 a year, at least, as a college drop out? However, he told me his older brothers were both managers, and on the same boat. One of them for example is a manager at a Home Depot. Home Depot decided that to do his job he needed a College degree so they fired him and rehired him to do the same job, under a different title and with less pay... It is to late for his brothers, but he is young enough, has the time and the money to change direction, get the degree and a job that he likes making even better money... crazy.
 
Onhell said:
That's an easy one... Yes, people are dumber than 20 years and even 150 years ago. There was a time when Latin was required of someone taking higher education, now people don't even give a shit about basic literature like Shakespeare, Cervantes or even Greek Mythology.

I hope you're kidding. The absolute requirements have changed, but the relative ones haven't. No, not all scholars are required to speak Greek or Latin anymore (although Latin still is a standard for many subjects, including mine), but they sure as hell need to know English (if that is not their first language) and preferrably, French, Spanish or German, depending where they are from.
Back in the day, Shakespeare and Cervantes were entertainment. Their works stood the test of time well, which is why they are now considered high culture. But to their contemporaries, their works were not different to profane literature of our time; and I can tell you that there are only very few university students I know who are not reading.
We are not required to know the same stuff as 150 years ago; but most of us know different (and I daresay more) things than people of 150 years ago.
 
50 or 150 years ago shakespeare was NOT entertainment... hadn't been for years by that point. And we may be more specialized yes, but I don't think we "know" more, we have the jist of many things, but KNOW them... hardly. I "know" about plate tectonics, does that make me a geologist? I think not. So I know about the subconcious thanks to our buddy Freud, I'm no psychoanalyst... get the picture? We get handed down plenty of second hand crap, does that make us "smarter"? Maybe a little more knowledgable, but there was something about reading those books and knowing those languages that made people at least more articulate rather than lub int3rnets sp33k.
  How dare you compare Shakespeare or Cervantes to today's profane literature? I hope you were kidding with that one. I've said it once and I'll say it again, today's "pop lit" is written by very well informed 5-year-olds. They know their stuff, give you plenty of facts, but they can't write worth shit.
  So ok, maybe people aren't dumber or smarter, simply different, but I like the old different to today's.
 
Onhell said:
  How dare you compare Shakespeare or Cervantes to today's profane literature? I hope you were kidding with that one. I've said it once and I'll say it again, today's "pop lit" is written by very well informed 5-year-olds. They know their stuff, give you plenty of facts, but they can't write worth shit.

I think Per's point isn't the fact that the classics can be compared to today's drivel, but rather that nothing at all is being learned. The point of studying literature is not so one will develop an appreciation for Don Quixote or Macbeth as great works of fiction. We study them in order to learn how to read, write, and express ourselves critically. It's the skills we learn while debating the symbolism of jousting at windmills which makes the whole thing worthwhile.

I wouldn't say people are dumber today than 20 years ago. I'd say there's a reigning consumer-based culture in which nobody wants to do anything unless there are immediate tangible rewards. They see no point in studying history, for example, because it won't "get them a job." For whatever reason, people shun critical thinnking. it starts in secondary school (I'm sure we've all seen the brainy kid get beat up for being a "nerd") and it continues on into the adult world (people's cries of "Ivory Tower academics!" not knowing anything about the real world.) We don't like to admit it, but we (western society) don't like smart people. We like average people who don't cause a stir, who don't ask too many questions, and who don't make us think about how bad we're getting hosed by the system.

Another part to this phenomenon I've been considering, after talking to a few professors of mine, is the extraordinarialy high participation rate in universities. In many parts of the US, more than 50-60% of graduating students attend university for at least a year out of high school. Canada is slightly lower (35-40%), and most European countries a bit lower still. But the point is that the rates are still incredibly high compared to what they were before circa 1960 (Damn baby boomers!).
Before then, most countries averaged around 5-10% participation rate in universities, and there wre even lower figures for the 19th century. In other words, university participation rates have outpaced the rates of population growth in most Western countries for the past 60 years.
Because we're getting a much higher proportion of people in post-secondary institutions, we don't get only the "cream of the crop" anymore; the bar has been lowered to allow more people over. Consequently, most older professors would tell you that the average high school graduate from 1950 was as capable of critical thinking and coherent writing as the average graduate of a four year undergraduate programme today. Likewise, the average graduate degree (Master's level, not PhD) today is worth about the same as a regular bachelor's degree in 1950.

national acrobat brought up the point that students in secondary schools are getting only academic training, and not vocational. I couldn't agree more. Like I said in my initial post, academics is not for everyone. Some people are good at it, just like some people are naturally good at building houses, and some are good at fixing computers. To expect each other those types of people to get the same kind of education after the basic skills are taught is stupid at best and harmful to individuals and society at worse. When my dad was in school, there were three different "streams" you could choose once you hit grade X - people who were going on to university would go into the academic stream, and be taught the skills they would need there. People who wanted to be bankers, accountants, clerks, technicians, etc. would go into the "professional" stream, and be taught relevant skills. Finally, people who wanted to be tradesmen learned practical skills like wood working, shop safety, machine repair, etc.
All three streams continued to learn math, language, history, etc. as well as their seperate "skills," but the emphasis was placed on things more relevant to what the people in that category were going to be doing with their lives. Moreover, all three were respected as equally valid choices for people to do. The system obviously wasn't perfect, but it was a lot better for everyone than what we have now.

Now, as promised, here are some stupid quotes from the papers I was marking. Keep in mind they're from a course on Canadian history in the 20th century.
Regarding official bilingualism: “This was implicated in the schools system where there is mandatary french corses and emersion offered, this still exists today.” (Apparently English courses aren’t “mandatary” like French ones.)
***
This was also the time when the surfer gets were emerging to help win her Great Second war.
***
It was only in the last election of the federal government that the leader of quebec party, stated within the debate between Paul Martain the Liberal leader, Jack Layton the NDP leader and Stephen Harper the Progressive Alliance leader at the time that Quebec is a misunderstood and should separate from Canada and become it’s own country alone.
***
In a world of opportunity, however, who can deny that French, in some areas, is more dominant than English?
***
Learning a new language means understand the culture behind.
***
On the creation of the welfare state after 1945: The creation of the welfare state obviously happened and continues to this day, but at what cost have we given for it. If you are walking in a neighborhood that is for people living on welfare you see many of these houses with satellite dishes. I thought welfare was created in order to supply the basic needs in order to live. Last time I checked this did not include satellite television (I am middle class and don’t even have one). This money is obviously not being well spent and the welfare program needs to be drastically looked over. Too many people are taking advantage of the welfare program.
(Talk about missing the f**king point)
***
The war was seen as a man slaughter but minority races obviously seen the war as a chance to increase their social status.
***
During the great depression almost everyone was in the same boat and that boat was sinking.
***
Why give this point in Canadian History the title “Nifty Fifties”? Well not only is it the funny title you give your dad when he turned 40 for the tenth time but the fifties gave rise to consumer culture.
***

I weep for the future.
 
Onhell said:
How dare you compare Shakespeare or Cervantes to today's profane literature? I hope you were kidding with that one. I've said it once and I'll say it again, today's "pop lit" is written by very well informed 5-year-olds. They know their stuff, give you plenty of facts, but they can't write worth shit.

*sigh*

Shakespeare wrote his plays for the entertainment of his audience. Cervantes wrote his books for the entertainment of his readers. So by the premise, they are to be compared with anything else that is done for entertainment. And this is where they become special. Their works stood the test of time and are still watched and read five hundred years on, unlike most of their contemporaries (Shakespeare was not the only playwright of his time, and Cervantes not the only author, but most of the others of that time are nowadays forgotten), and unlike, I assume, 97% of what is being produced today. Get my point?
 
Perun is right.  Since when is someone considered smarter when he reads Shakespear :huh:?  Being smart doesn't have anything to do with reading, or knowledge.  You're smart when you can understand situations around you and you're a fast thinker...  Someone can be smarter than Einstein,  even if he doesn't know shit.  The difference is,  that Einstein was able to produce something with his brains.  The other probably won't be able.  That's another story though...

Now,  as for modern literature,  it's not such a good idea to claim it's "crap" and it won't last long.  Even if that be true,  we can be sure of it only after some years have passed...
 
Onhell said:
*Sigh*  Yes, but it is painfully obvious you didn't get mine.

Apparently I didn't. Would you be so kind to elaborate, as I did?
 
You mean again? Sure. Obviously Shakespeare and Cervantes were... "entertainers" to the crowds of their day just like Socrates was one of many teachers in ancient Greece. But there is a reason we study them in higher education and not the others, which are still around, just not as famous. For example you can still find a Crash Test Dummies Cd, even though I'm sure the great majority of people have absolutely no clue who they are.

At any rate, I mean that before they gave a greater importance not only to the classics, but also the acquisition of other languages, specifically Latin, but Greek as well. And there is a reason for it. In one of my Humanities classes we read Confession's of an English Opium Eater. The author's name eludes me at the moment, but in his autobiographical account he explains how he took Greek at University. My pofessor pointed out the following, the importance of learning a second lanugage, no matter which one, here was a man that took greek, NEVER used it again in his life, but what it did to his English was impressive, he was more articulate and expressive in his own language because of it. Now we are told he have to learn so many things and we no longer require certain fields (maths and sciences for example) to familiarize themselves with that base. For example, at least at my University the History undergraduate program doesn't require the knowledge of Latin or Greek, but it does require a second language (usually Spanish, German or Italian). If it is not required at the undergraduate level how can these students be prepared for Graduate level studies if they so choose to pursue them?

THAT was my point. There is a reason and a good one, the classics and dead languages, among other things, were given such prime importance in the early and not so early days of higher education, they made and still make people THINK. I don't see that as the norm in contemporary Universities, at least in the U.S
 
Don't you think that learning a second language in general will do the trick to your usage of your own language? This is a real question, not a rethorical one. I am an advocate of teaching 'dead' languages, for various reasons, but for improving your own language, I think it doesn't matter if it is a living or a dead one.
 
Perun said:
Don't you think that learning a second language in general will do the trick to your usage of your own language? This is a real question, not a rethorical one. I am an advocate of teaching 'dead' languages, for various reasons, but for improving your own language, I think it doesn't matter if it is a living or a dead one.

I couldn't agree more, Per. I hardly knew anything about English grammar and style before I learned French. And this was made all the more apparent when I learned German. A second or third language helps you to use new parts of your brain, think more clearly, and helps you articulate yourself better in your mother tongue.
 
Back
Top