Something fundamentally wrong with universities?

<p>It strikes me that the entire university system around the world is, at least to some extent, flawed. The reason is that it does not guarantee equal opportunities. If we take two equally talented students, A who enrols in a world-renowned university, and B who enrols in a not-so-good university, then under the current system, student B is crippled from the very start! However well he/she performs at his university, however many obstacles he manages to overcome, his degree is still worth less to employers than A's degree.</p>

<p>It isn't like that in school. Of course students at better schools will get the better facilities, better teachers etc.; but students from not-so-great schools can still compete with them on an even footing. The reason this is so is the existence of standardized tests. You can study at a nationally-renowned high school or a small village school, but your A'Level degree or IB diploma is worth exactly the same wherever you studied. That seems infinitely fairer than the system existing in universities today, where the name and fame of the university you study at is actually a factor.</p>

<p>Anyone else with thoughts on this matter?</p>

<p>I really don't have any more information than you do on this issue, but the following is just my theory:</p>

<p>Initially schools too did not have a standardized system, each school had its own methods of teaching and evaluation (I am referring not only to schools in the USA, but schools all over the world).
This was at a time when University education was considered to be available only to the elite class of society (in turn, most universities themselves were elitist) and most middle class people got jobs straight out of school. Soon, university education became more and more accessible to the common man. This, I feel, was the basic cause of the standardization of school education. Now, the aim of school was not simply to provide a holistic education to the students, but also to send them off to a good university, hence over a period of time, school education was standardized (to put students form different schools on a level field, and various other reasons)
The difference between the situation there and that of university education today is that the school's aim of getting its students into university has no direct parallel at university level. Contrary to common misconception, universities preparing students for jobs is not a parallel scenario. The purpose of university is still to provide students with a holistic education as opposed to job-preparation.
Unfortunately, as the job market now has no better criteria for selecting employees, so they are using universities as a system of standardization. BUT, the universities themselves are not inclined to cater to this need, as they don't see themselves as vocational-training institutes.
Hence, the discrepancies.</p>

<p>^ I hope I was coherent?!</p>

<p>
[quote]
as they don't see themselves as vocational-training institutes

[/quote]

I am reasonably sure that a LOT of schools view themselves as "vocational-training institutes". If they wouldn't, you could only study liberal arts as opposed to business, engineering, or all those vocational community college majors.</p>

<p>The way I look at it:</p>

<p>The playing field is level when it comes to getting an undergraduate education. The high school that you go to does not affect your chances. Logically, two identical students should not be at two very different schools. Cases where two similar people are going to universities that are looked upon very differently by employers are in the minority.</p>

<p>But even then, there are cases where this happens. That is why you have the LSAT, MCAT, GMAT, GRE which are examples of a few standardised tests that undergraduates give in order to gain admissions to graduate schools. These tests are a result of the very problem that you are talking about.</p>

<p>The thing is students graduating from places like Harvard, Princeton, MIT are genuinely very good and hence they are recruited by large firms and corporations in higher numbers. It doesn't have much to do with the university they graduated from than it has to do with the fact that they were good enough to graduate from that university.</p>

<p>Lastly, to end my rant; the world isn't fair and equality is a retarded concept.</p>

<p>Yeah, give up equality! It ruined the German universities!</p>

<p>Aw5k, I ahve heard that statement about how German unis have gone down the drain a few times. I was just curious of what exacly happend? Are all Unis in Germany now consideared to be at about the same level? Are Heidelberg, Munich and free Berlin better?</p>

<p>My point of few about German universities:
Their teaching is about at the same level, but not quite. E.g. Munich's financial mathematics department has access to real-time stock exchange quotations, which smaller universities cannot afford.
But there still are huge diffferences when it comes to research.
Btw, our government is trying to make "elite universities" out of Munich and Karsruhe by giving them an additional 300 M € over 5 years. That's only about 20 M € per year per university. Compare that to real elite universities with budgets in the $ 1-3 billion range....</p>

<p>Before WWII, German universities were probably one of the best unis in the world. After WWII, people wanted all universities to be at more or less the same level - equal opportunities, etc. What happened is that we have a dozens of pretty good universities, but none of them is outstanding. As barium pointed out, some unis are known for a particular subject, but even this is very confusing. There aren't any real reliable rankings yet.</p>

<p>The German government has realized that this "equality" thing is absurd. They're now trying to finance some "elite universities". The term, however, is ridiculous. They apparently think that it's possible to establish elite colleges by just giving money. In any case, the universities don't select their students on their own yet.</p>

<p>
[quote]
In any case, the universities don't select their students on their own yet.

[/quote]

Well, universities have the right to select their students, but most of them don't make use of it. One exception is the technical university of Munich, which requires either a very good GPA or a strong motivation to study the desired subject (demonstrated in an essay and/or interview).</p>

<p>I didn't know that about the TU Munich, while I am not very surprised. TU Munich is the university that tries the hardest to be more selective and more elitarian.</p>

<p>True.... their website even tells you how many of their students had a Abiturnote of 1.3 or better.</p>

<p>The German program seemed to have been an interesting process of Social Engenering. Although not a very well thought out one. Although you said they are all at the same level are there some unis that get a lot of applicants per place than others? Thanks for answering my question.</p>

<p>Most universities have open enrollment policies, except for a few selected majors that are very popular (medicine and psychology everywhere; biology, law, business and computer science in most places). For those few majors, some universities are more popular (thus harder to get into) than others, usually due to the location of the university and special concentrations offered within the major. In general however, it doesn't really matter if there are 200 or 300 students in one program because most of the classes are lectures anyway, and who cares how many people are listening?</p>