“…definitely don’t graduate from university in 3 years, which would have been easy for her because she already had a lot of credits and so on,…”
Huh? The European Higher Education Area (EHEA) system that emerged from the Bologna Process, reshaped universities across Europe starting in the late 1990s. The “three-year degree” structure is one of its outcomes. This causes quite a “problem” when we get European transfers into the “American system” of four year degrees (really 4+ for many/most of our (lazy) students these days).
Point being, there is simply no logical reason for spending 4 years in university. It’s a waste of time and resources to the benefit of colleges tuition milking courtesy of the Federal college loan programs. And no, I’m not talking about doubling up on course loads and summer school to earn the required mythical 128 course units in three years. I’m talking about cutting the fluff—much of which now seems required in order to make up for HS deficiencies and low admission standards for university admission. For example, my prior university admitted a few years age to 40% of its Freshman class were taking remedial coursework. When I first enrolled at university such folk rejected. It was called “failure to meet minimal qualifications.” (Yeah, I’m old.)
A post secondary (university) degree is not for all. BLS has estimated that *45%* of Millennials have some form of post secondary degree! This is not including those youth who enrolled, but failed to achieve a degree (dropouts)! Prior to WWII, about 6% of HS graduates went to college. What’s a university system for if not to take the best and brightest of us and perfect them to the benefit of society. At best, we might have 20% of the nation’s youth even eligible for admission. To admit the less qualified is to lower the standards for graduation and produce mediocrity.
>Huh? The European Higher Education Area (EHEA) system that emerged from the Bologna Process, reshaped universities across Europe starting in the late 1990s.
Yep I'm aware. America has uniquely bad education. Europe isn't great but America is the worst when it comes to all of the problems discussed. Acceleration is more common in Europe. I would like if America adopted something like the German education system with homeschooling and more market-economy diversity.
>A post secondary (university) degree is not for all.
I agree. Considering the economy separate from eugenic analysis, the correct answer is that less than 15% of people should go to anything resembling university. They could all finish it by 18 too. However, considering how tough it is to do eugenics, it would be funny if all of the people that don't need to be there go, and stay to late ages. The money spent on this socially would be a waste, except for its potential eugenic function. It may not be worth it though, unless graduating very early induces smarter people to marry earlier and have more kids. It may do neither sufficiently; one study showed that to increase a couple's fertility by 1 kid, they have to marry 10 years earlier on average, since early wed couples will just family plan these days, instead of having a kid every year or two.
Yeah, I could have expanded into the aspects of eugenics and IQ wrt admission, but then the comment becomes longish and often receives a lot of commentary I’d rather not get into. I can agree with your 15% figure as to being superior estimate to my 20%. I tend to soften up these comments for the audience. :-(
The Education System have a lot of barriers of entry and obstacles that aren't meant to assure dumb people don't get there but to expell anti-bullshitters and dissidents
I'd be curious to know: What, according to the author, is the purpose of education? Claude suggests: Cognitive/Professional Sorting and Economic Efficiency and Eugenic Social Engineering. That may be the personal view of that particular LLM, but it makes me curious to hear what the author himself would say.
“…definitely don’t graduate from university in 3 years, which would have been easy for her because she already had a lot of credits and so on,…”
Huh? The European Higher Education Area (EHEA) system that emerged from the Bologna Process, reshaped universities across Europe starting in the late 1990s. The “three-year degree” structure is one of its outcomes. This causes quite a “problem” when we get European transfers into the “American system” of four year degrees (really 4+ for many/most of our (lazy) students these days).
Point being, there is simply no logical reason for spending 4 years in university. It’s a waste of time and resources to the benefit of colleges tuition milking courtesy of the Federal college loan programs. And no, I’m not talking about doubling up on course loads and summer school to earn the required mythical 128 course units in three years. I’m talking about cutting the fluff—much of which now seems required in order to make up for HS deficiencies and low admission standards for university admission. For example, my prior university admitted a few years age to 40% of its Freshman class were taking remedial coursework. When I first enrolled at university such folk rejected. It was called “failure to meet minimal qualifications.” (Yeah, I’m old.)
A post secondary (university) degree is not for all. BLS has estimated that *45%* of Millennials have some form of post secondary degree! This is not including those youth who enrolled, but failed to achieve a degree (dropouts)! Prior to WWII, about 6% of HS graduates went to college. What’s a university system for if not to take the best and brightest of us and perfect them to the benefit of society. At best, we might have 20% of the nation’s youth even eligible for admission. To admit the less qualified is to lower the standards for graduation and produce mediocrity.
>Huh? The European Higher Education Area (EHEA) system that emerged from the Bologna Process, reshaped universities across Europe starting in the late 1990s.
Yep I'm aware. America has uniquely bad education. Europe isn't great but America is the worst when it comes to all of the problems discussed. Acceleration is more common in Europe. I would like if America adopted something like the German education system with homeschooling and more market-economy diversity.
>A post secondary (university) degree is not for all.
I agree. Considering the economy separate from eugenic analysis, the correct answer is that less than 15% of people should go to anything resembling university. They could all finish it by 18 too. However, considering how tough it is to do eugenics, it would be funny if all of the people that don't need to be there go, and stay to late ages. The money spent on this socially would be a waste, except for its potential eugenic function. It may not be worth it though, unless graduating very early induces smarter people to marry earlier and have more kids. It may do neither sufficiently; one study showed that to increase a couple's fertility by 1 kid, they have to marry 10 years earlier on average, since early wed couples will just family plan these days, instead of having a kid every year or two.
Yeah, I could have expanded into the aspects of eugenics and IQ wrt admission, but then the comment becomes longish and often receives a lot of commentary I’d rather not get into. I can agree with your 15% figure as to being superior estimate to my 20%. I tend to soften up these comments for the audience. :-(
The Education System have a lot of barriers of entry and obstacles that aren't meant to assure dumb people don't get there but to expell anti-bullshitters and dissidents
I'd be curious to know: What, according to the author, is the purpose of education? Claude suggests: Cognitive/Professional Sorting and Economic Efficiency and Eugenic Social Engineering. That may be the personal view of that particular LLM, but it makes me curious to hear what the author himself would say.