When we look at the "best" schools really the best since they teach so well?
Or maybe they are the best, since they got a brand early and simply collect the best candidates? Those best candidates would be the best students/more successful in later life even if they went to a mediocre university?
Obviously the better universities probably are better at teaching, but I still wonder how much depends on the quality of students that they accept. Also in the absolute top universities, lots of students come from "old" wealth - and are destined to inherit money and positions from their parents.
Obviously it doesnt make sense to send a kid to a bad university, because it is probably bad (bad teachers, bad students), but I wonder if those "good" universities are really that good due to own actions.
> Obviously the better universities probably are better at teaching
I wasn't taught very much at university. There were a few lectures a week, and a weekly tutorial.
I think there's a difference between the UK and US undergraduate experience: I suspect that US students expect something like school, but better. So you get showbiz professors with charisma. In the UK, at least in research universities, teaching undergraduates is a boring side-job, unless they are showing potential as postgrad students (who can be put to work helping the professor's research). The purpose of a batchelor's degree, then, is to train you to study on your own, which is a prerequisite for postgrad study.
I happen to think that's a good thing; I don't think universities should be providing vocational training. That should be done by another kind of institution. A good batchelor's degree - any good batchelor's degree - is then evidence that you can work and learn under your own steam.
I've never been to university in the USA; I'm guessing, based on how US and UK students describe their experiences, and on the differing styles of US and UK professors on Youtube, TV etc.
When we look at the "best" schools really the best since they teach so well? Or maybe they are the best, since they got a brand early and simply collect the best candidates? Those best candidates would be the best students/more successful in later life even if they went to a mediocre university?
Obviously the better universities probably are better at teaching, but I still wonder how much depends on the quality of students that they accept. Also in the absolute top universities, lots of students come from "old" wealth - and are destined to inherit money and positions from their parents.
Obviously it doesnt make sense to send a kid to a bad university, because it is probably bad (bad teachers, bad students), but I wonder if those "good" universities are really that good due to own actions.