|
Mandatory attendance and homework in higher education (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
This thread became a bit larger than I had imagined it would, so I'll address the points, rather than posters individually:- More people should be failing/grade inflation: Actually, it's both a problem if too many people pass with flying colours (because you're probably not pushing them hard enough) and if too many people fail (there's a gap between the level students must reach and where they're "stuck"). If anything, the latter has led to a crisis in the major I teach because the dropout rate has always hovered above 66% since the first class graduated some 20 years ago. 85% of my classmates jumped ship before graduation, actually, and I was the only one who graduated in 9 semesters, as planned. No one who first enrolled with me was there my graduation day. That's way below average compared to other courses even in Brazil, where 49% of students drop out before graduation.
So, in a sense, too many people are already failing, and that's taxpayers' money going down the drain (public education is completely subsidised by the state here in Brazil). Find the sweet spot between grade inflation and low morale seems to be a bit difficult because while some of us want to lower the bar so more people can advance, there are many alumni who find the diploma worthless without the accompanying skills, and this would just make the situation worse.
- Universities and the social ladder: From what I've read, roughly 1 in 8 Brazilians completed higher education, both in public institutions or otherwise. I'm afraid we're not just failing the poor, we're squandering talent all over the place :(
- Stopping students from talking outside the classroom: I know this is Latin America, IGK, but even here dictatorship is frowned upon :p
|
As I said, Lira, my point about more people should be failing was solely directed by my annoyance with current endemic grade inflation. I imagine that in an ideal world I would hope the dropout/failure rate would be 0%, as the only students in university would be those meant to be there, although perhaps 1-3% would be acceptable. Obviously huge drop out rates are a problem, either for why did those students go to university in the first place, why did they choose the course they dropped out of, what problem occurred in life necessitating them dropping out, etc. Regardless of the reason they drop out, that's a huge inefficiency. (For most cases, I can easily imagine some cases where it was best the student went to university for some time but then left before finishing.)
I would think it clear that comments on how many people should not be going to university is fully directed towards the advanced Western societies trying to make 100% of citizens go to university, not towards developing states like Brazil. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jon_Snow
But you do realize the classroom is a dictatorship? So is not taking attendance the last vestige of free will you're holding on to? |
I mean, I see the similarities, but I guess dictatorship is too strong a word... And I studied in a military school for 7 years, mind you :p
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
I would think it clear that comments on how many people should not be going to university is fully directed towards the advanced Western societies trying to make 100% of citizens go to university, not towards developing states like Brazil. |
My bad! Actually, this is also because we see ourselves as part of the West, what with us joining the OECD and doing better than both Chile and Mexico regarding PhDs per capita.
And because I wanted to say something about these topics, I know we're not all exactly on the same boat, education wise. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
I mean, I see the similarities, but I guess dictatorship is too strong a word... And I studied in a military school for 7 years, mind you :p |
On one hand it is a dictatorship, since the teacher rules in the classroom; yet on the other, do not the students and the teacher have a contract with one another? One agreeing to instruct the other, in exchange for payment?
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
My bad! Actually, this is also because we see ourselves as part of the West, what with us joining the OECD and doing better than both Chile and Mexico regarding PhDs per capita.
And because I wanted to say something about these topics, I know we're not all exactly on the same boat, education wise. |
Well... 'joining' the OECD; yes... We'll see when that goes through.
Do Brazilians really see themselves as part of 'the West'? Doing better than Chile and Mexico isn't exactly a selling point.
I mean no offence to Brasil, of course. But joining the OECD and everything has really seemed like jumping the gun a bit, and an action taken mostly for the approval of foreign bondholders. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
On one hand it is a dictatorship, since the teacher rules in the classroom; yet on the other, do not the students and the teacher have a contract with one another? One agreeing to instruct the other, in exchange for payment? |
Yeah, this is how I see it. Even if you accept there's a "social contract" in a country, the students are there because they (or their parents) want to be taught.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Do Brazilians really see themselves as part of 'the West'? |
Why, yes, this was actually one of the strangest things I learned on TA - that we're not seen as part of the West even though we take it for granted we're part of it.
Think about it from our point of view: culturally, we owe a lot to Western Europe, from our main religion to our language. Politically speaking, we've been so inspired by the French, there's a motto of a French philosopher in our flag (Auguste Comte), the main square of our capital was based on Montesquieu's politics, and Brasília could well have been designed by Descartes (as it's built upon a Cartesian axis). All signs point West.
We're a democracy and, even when there are flaws, we compare ourselves to Italy. We're halfway there when it comes to industrialisation, and so on and so on. So, yeah, it was here on TA that I first heard we aren't part of the West... And I still find it bizarre because I don't what we are any more :p |
|
|
| Lews |
I'm not sure Italy is the best country to compare yourself to (the North/South divine, etc.)...
Do you really think of yourself as an Upper Income Western State?
I'm not trying to be a dick; I'm just flabbergasted that you think of yourself like that. I can really get into details as to why you are not, despite the architecture of your buildings and squares, but really I'm just amazed you compare yourself to that. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| "The West" is the white first world. In practise, that means North America, (western) Europe, and Australia/New Zealand. |
|
|
| Jon_Snow |
Lira I don't make the rules. Sorry old boy members only. :p
If you need proof when's the last time you had a Muslim extremists attack in your country? |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jon_Snow
If you need proof when's the last time you had a Muslim extremists attack in your country? |
We have sexy time with them before they radicalise, so all we have is this:
Esfiha > Jihadis :D
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Do you really think of yourself as an Upper Income Western State? |
I think we just have very different definitions of what the West is, because I do not think of ourselves as "Upper Income". Let's face it, we're about as average as average can be. If you take GDP per capita as a measurement, we're right there with the world average. If only we weren't so sexy, we'd be the named after vanilla rather than brasilwood.
Here, let me show you something: go to Wikipedia. Search for "The West" or "Western World" (the pages are merged). Go see the Portuguese version of the page. Check the map. This is precisely what I understand by "the West":
I don't even have a beef with an English-speaking Christian democratic South Africa belonging in the club. If you want, I can make a quick survey among my friends on Facebook to see if they also think of ourselves as being part of the West (or not). Also, out of curiosity, your definition of West includes a cultural bit, right? Can you tell what attitude I've shown over the years that have struck you as non-Western? We don't have mods from, say, Thailand or Kenya, so you could tell how a non-Western poster/moderator would be like but, still...
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
I'm just flabbergasted that you think of yourself like that |
And you're making me feel like this:
Never mind the message, I have no idea what that's all about :p |
|
|
| Lews |
Don't be offended by my apparent insult towards your country, Lira; being flabbergasted is more a statement of my own small-mindedness, that I had never considered you would think of yourself like that. I'm always fascinated by issues of identity, be they personal, national, civilisational, etc., and it's interesting to hear that a large group of people identify as members of a group I never thought of them belonging in.
I suppose my view on what is 'The West' is strongly influenced by Samuel Huntington's classifications (although I very much differ with him about the necessity of there being a 'clash' between civilizations).
Slightly further than his views, and many other people's, however, I would probably also consider 'The West' to include Japan; I'd say the states that joined the OECD before the fall of Communism, but replacing Turkey with Japan.
I definitely don't think being part of 'The West' necessarily involves being white, but a certain European way of doing things seems critical. For me, that involves an advanced economy and advanced multiparty democracy, although in some ways that more describes North/Western Europe, the broader Anglosphere, and Japan.
In many of the other important cultural elements, of course Latin America is very much Western, but I feel that the years (centuries) of problems have led to very much of a splintering away from the rest of the Western World.
I dunno, it's all very interesting. What is The Occident? What defines a civilization? I think what I feel as 'The West' is more what some (you?) describe as 'the Developed world,' while you feel 'the West' is a more cultural thing. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| sorry, lira. you need to be as white as your wedding sneakers before you get to be on Team West. |
|
|
| Jon_Snow |
Oh those wedding sneakers! I told you Lira one day they would be your undoing.
If it makes you feel better I've always thought of you as a white guy who has a permanent tan and big hair. :p |
|
|
| Woony |
Sorry, I didn't really find the time and energy to reply to your post in the past week Lews, here's a quick try :p
First of all, no, I'm obviously not going to communist college. There are very few genuine radical leftists in german academia - somewhat paradoxically, while obviously being more right-wing as a whole, the US actually has much more extremly far leftists in academic (tenured) positions than Germany. The ex-nazis, conservatives and social democrats came together and made sure of that here, whereas in the US the academic radicals were often essentially ignored and allowed to the their thing quietly because they were/are such an insignificant force culturally and politically in the US. Meanwhile, the social democracts here really fought hard over the control of academia and have managed to mostly keep the radicals out in the last 40-50 years.
| quote: | | Originally posted by Lews And people have been reproducing capital, trying to have more and more money, since there has been money! |
But was the end goal money? I don't think, so I think it was wealth, not money, whatever that is, in itself. Reading any pre-capitalist sources, I always get the feeling, that money meant a very different thing (obviously, people were just as greedy, that's not the point), that at some point this split happened between money and value.. And I think here lies the core issue - money and work, I think there was a fundamental shift in what these things really mean. Modern marxist theory has some ideas but really, it's hard to exactly pinpoint where and how things changed but I think that's where the roots of capitalism lie. Pre-capitalist investment was not the same as capitalist investment, I would claim, like I said before, reproduction as mean to an end (wealth) vs. reproduction as this empty form, that exists only to serve itself (capital). I mean that's essentially marxism's problem, right, not that things are reproduced but rather that they are reproduced to service the formula (maximum profit = reproduction, at all costs), the abstract entity that is capital itself, even if what is produced is different to the real value that humans actually need. And again, this isn't really about free market vs. state economy or distribution but the very essence of how we produce things. Obviously, it's sometimes hard to pinpoint these things with cold hard historical 'facts' but I don't think taking this core terminology at face value really accomplishes anything whereas speculation might be wrong but at least generates some ideas about what happened. |
|
|
|
|
