The best model of higher education?

[studiot]

3. something else

[CharonY]

So guyts, what do you propose? I see three possibilities:

1. Leaving higher education as it is (I'm talking about Europe mostly)

 

Also note that the implementation in various European countries vary quite a bit, which reflects different concepts each country had implemented. UK is closer to US than Germany, for example. The Bologna process was supposed to streamline things, but in effect it created a hot mess that unis are ill suited to cope with.

[Hans de Vries]

CharonY, your profile info ssys you're a researcher. Do you teach in USA or in Europe?

[CharonY]

I have in both.

[Hans de Vries]

I don't know where you graduated and where you teach but may I ask you how good the top universities are compared to average ones (rankings-wise) on undergraduate and graduate level and what's the difference between USA and Europe? Since the overwhelming majority of all jobs require a master's degree max and only a miniscule part of all graduates ever do a PhD, I'm asking specifically about undergrad and grad.

 

In short - does an good grad student of physics (or whatever) from e.g. University of Copenhagen have similar grasp of the field that a student from Massachusetts University of Technology?

 

And how would you judge the Bologna Process?

Edited January 8, 2015 by Hans de Vries

[CharonY]

I cannot really say much about the differences for the whole of Europe, as I only taught in Germany. The UK system, for instance is much more similar to the US system.

The main difference is that the bachelor in the US and to some lesser extent in the UK are more like extended school. In the old German system, school was 13 years in the "Gymnasium"-tier, and much of the bachelor things were already somewhat incorporated in high school. Then, a major difference was that upon entering Uni you would choose a degree (e.g. Biology, Chemistry, Political Science etc.) and your whole curriculum is based on that. US has more of a pick and choose aspect, although for certain courses and degrees you have certain prerequisite courses. Still, you have more freedom to choose and hence, there is more emphasis on a broader education.

 

In the old system after 2 years yo do not actually get a degree, but you are then allowed to enter main studies (for at least another four semesters) upon completion you can start working on a diploma thesis (in the natural sciences) that would take about a year of labwork and writing for completion. Only after that you get a degree (Diploma) which is roughly a Master's degree. The old system was very hands-off and very motivated students could learn a lot (as in the main studies you basically have practical lab courses, rather than lectures). Disadvantage is that those that are not, tend to stick around forever (as education was basically free).

 

Now the German system has converted to a Bachelor/Masters system, but have kept the degree tracks (i.e. if you study Chemistry you enter a different track than Physics students). Moreover, there is more emphasis on exams so that binge-learning has become the norm and there is less money and time for practical courses, which, in my mind are where you learn the most. Furthermore, grades have an impact whether you can enter Master's courses and there is a stricter limitation on how long you can stick around.

As a result, students are better in getting high marks in exams (though grade inflation is also an issue) but even the motivated ones tend to retain and understand less. They learn for the exam, which is also somewhat the norm in the US.

 

That leads me to the point that assessment of student quality on the undergrad level (i.e. pre-bachelor) is very hard as you basically only have exam grades to go by. Lab reports are a bit better if you can squeeze in something more difficult and read something that shows that students have been thinking about the problem rather than googling the answer, but even then it is not trivial. Typically, I get the best sense during 1-on-1 interactions during (under-)graduate research in my lab. I was not in an ivy league uni, but I had a few grad students and postdocs (most as part of collaborations) from MIT, Stanford, UCLA, Caltech and UCDavies. Based on that my impression is that the research group they did research in, has a far higher impact on their abilities rather than the university itself.balance write excellent papers, for example. Some of the most impressive students were not ivy leaguers but rather highly interested and motivated individuals.

The reason for this is that the basic science education does not differ that much from uni to uni. In some you may have nicer facilities or better equipment in the course labs. But honestly, to understand principles you do not need either. If you are interested you can learn basics equally well almost anywhere. Truth is, you gain the real skills not in the lecture halls, but by diving right into problems, which, in epxerimental sciences, means that you need to join a lab. How much you learn is pretty much dependent on how the PI sets up the lab and his/her strategy to transfer knowledge (or lack thereof), If the group is dysfunctional (it can be social issues, not just scientific, e,g. bullying or mobbing), it does not matter much how well it is funded, your potential to learn will be greatly diminished.

 

As a final point to the Bologna process, it gives the unis confused guidelines and they try to adhere to them, but since it is pretty much an administrative thing, it has only brought issues on the academic side and from what I hear from my colleagues the student quality suffers from it. While politicians may think of it as a great success, I have not heard from any faculty that consider it well-implemented.

One issue that I brought up earlier is that different countries had different visions of higher education (e.g. broad vs. focused, career-oriented vs academic etc.). The Bologna process ended up with providing administrative rules that basically steamrolled the institutions without providing a proper vision of the goals of higher education.

[physica]

I don't know where you graduated and where you teach but may I ask you how good the top universities are compared to average ones (rankings-wise) on undergraduate and graduate level and what's the difference between USA and Europe? Since the overwhelming majority of all jobs require a master's degree max and only a miniscule part of all graduates ever do a PhD, I'm asking specifically about undergrad and grad.

 

In short - does an good grad student of physics (or whatever) from e.g. University of Copenhagen have similar grasp of the field that a student from Massachusetts University of Technology?

 

And how would you judge the Bologna Process?

Sorry for the late reply. My first degree was at Nottingham and then I worked for Imperial college London NHS trust and also did medical research at Imperial college London. After coming to terms with the depressing standards of medical academia I went back to university to study physics. Because of the £9000 a year tuition fees I decided to do my physics degree through open university (an unranked distance learning university). The UK universities honestly don't care where you did your undergrad. My degree cost me £10,000 as opposed to £27,000 and I have contacted professors at Imperial, University college London, Kings college London and Cambridge. They've all replied saying that if I get a good grade in my degree I will be admitted. My friend did a masters at Birkbeck (ranked 300th in the world) and he now has an interview at Cambridge for a phd. I can't speak for other universities but UK universities seriously don't care where you got your undergrad from. If you're willing to do an MSC/phd I'd pick the cheapest university that will give you an accredited degree, work extremely hard and then apply for bigger universities later. If you don't want to do any post grad study then pay out for a good university for undergrad.

[physica]

To update this thread and to concrete my point I have received a conditional offer from Kings College London in physics MSc which is further proof that UK universities don't care about where you did your undergrad degree. I have absolutely zero student debt. Don't be tricked into paying through the nose for an expensive undergraduate degree.