Is college really a place for learning?

[blanclait]

I'm a 1st year at Ryerson, Canada for Fashion Design (4-yr program)
Despite its self-proclamation as being best fashion school in Canada, I hate their program to death.

1st year, the foundation year, is "trying" to get us into working in a certain method. I have already passed this stage. I already know the best way I work. Yet they force us into the generic method that works for the majority. Therefore, very little is gained through the coursework. I tried these methods ages ago in high school, and I scrapped it b/c it didn't work for me.

As a result, I do half ass job on every assignment, rather school work is interrupting my real self studies. Therefore I'm passing at the bare minimum (i think) except for few courses.

I expected University/College to be a place of learning. Right now, it is preventing me from learning.

Of course some aspect of the program are quite essential (though I don't fully enjoy or understand always) but still, it's not worth the time and money I invested.

What is being taught is very shallow and so are the people.

This is worse than high school. At least high school gave me time to do my studies. University seems to enforce their methods and rob all of student's free time, to do REAL studies.
Shouldn't education be more of a guide?
and none of this bureaucratic crap?

Only redeeming factor so far is the connection school provides. Everything else are disappointments after disappointments.

This has to be the most pessimistic post I ever made


any thoughts? or anyone who felt/gone through a similar situation?

Of course this varies per major and my limited knowledge/experience in post secondary schools makes my post a biased one. So feel to correct me.

 

[Phantonym]

I agree with you. I've found over the years that going to the university hinders my learning. It's like an automated line where the end goal is only to pass the courses. Well, maybe I just have too high expectations of a university being a place of inspiration and although there are some wonderful professors, it all gets lost in the process and for the moment it's turned out to be a stifling influence. I can't wait to get out of school to actually start enjoying learning again. That's something positive at least. Oh, it's not that bad really, considering that I'd rather go to school than work.

 

[Scott N Denver]

I think there tends to be a lack of depth in interactions [usually you only have a given prof for a semester], and it definitely has a certain "conveyor belt"/degree factory feeling. With that said, I personally learned a lot in college, but I was also a math and physics double major. I read a LOT on my own, eastern philosophy for example, yet found the available courses on that subject painfully inadequate.

Like many things in life, what you get out of it is approximately equal to what you put into it. Many people do "major in beer, pizza, and women", as the saying goes.

 

[FDG]

Yeah, Colleges and Universities often have large libraries. That's where you can learn.

 

[Athenian200]

No, it's a place where you get the OPPORTUNITY to learn. If you knew absolutely nothing about the subject to start with, wouldn't you agree that it would give you an idea of where to start? Historically, information wasn't as accessible as it is today, and having access to a university was mostly valuable because it gave you access to their libraries and professors. It wasn't really about the classes (though those were held to give people the basics) so much as independent study and collaboration with other people who understood the field. The emphasis on the actual classes came later.

But honestly, the whole point of college these days is what High School used to be. Basically, to prove that you're:

1. Not completely incompetent.
2. Were able to procure a route to college.
3. Can understand on a very basic level what you're doing.
4. Can perform well consistently enough to meet the criteria for grades and a diploma.

Perferably with other things on your plate like extracurricular activities. The assumption is that once you've proven that, you'll have to build on your education yourself through experience to actually understand the subject. College is about proving your ability to meet other people's expectations consistently, not understand the subject. They just don't say that because it would sound too arrogant if they said it outright.

But the fact is, it does tend to weed out people who can't figure out how to get things done, and employers like that because they don't want to waste time with people who struggle to get things done.

I wish I'd known that earlier, then I would have started planning for college in high school. But the teachers made college sound so challenging/competitive that I was discouraged from trying. Ironically, it was probably intended to psyche me up for the challenge, but it had the opposite effect.

 

[Habba]

Colleges/universities in Finland are meant for diligent people with an average skillset. That is, they don't do learning on their past time, but are willing to put countless hours in studying at colleges/universities. So it's a place for people who are dedicated to studies, not for people who know what they want and how to get it.

But besides learning, there are other opportunities as well:

- Networking with similar people
- Having new projects that are given to you with deadlines... so you'll have to work through them even if your motivation would be below zero.
- Finding opportunities to work

 

[FDG]

Colleges/universities in Finland are meant for diligent people with an average skillset. That is, they don't do learning on their past time, but are willing to put countless hours in studying at colleges/universities. So it's a place for people who are dedicated to studies, not for people who know what they want and how to get it.

But besides learning, there are other opportunities as well:

- Networking with similar people
- Having new projects that are given to you with deadlines... so you'll have to work through them even if your motivation would be below zero.
- Finding opportunities to work

I agree 100% (the attitude is similar here in Italy)

 

[Oaky]

Colleges/universities in Finland are meant for diligent people with an average skillset. That is, they don't do learning on their past time, but are willing to put countless hours in studying at colleges/universities. So it's a place for people who are dedicated to studies, not for people who know what they want and how to get it.

But besides learning, there are other opportunities as well:

- Networking with similar people
- Having new projects that are given to you with deadlines... so you'll have to work through them even if your motivation would be below zero.
- Finding opportunities to work

I disagree. I'd agree to this only in certain colleges.

I'm in college and I know exactly what I want and college is just one way to get it. It helps a lot. I'm not there to study. I'm there to become what I want to be.

For example: Someone wants to become a doctor to help people. You can't be a doctor without going through medical college. You'd be sent to court if you perform a surgery without a medical degree.

So, yea... Your statement works with only certain colleges.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I think this must depend on what courses you take. I got a degree in Math and I learned plenty. My minor was in Theatre and I also learned plenty there, but not in the conventional way. The normal Theatre courses really didn't teach much, but I was also required to work on every play they were putting on (either on stage or behind the scenes), and this experience actually taught me a whole lot. I think the quality of the education must be based on what courses you are taking and what your major is in.

 

[rhinosaur]

College is about learning.
It is also about jumping through hoops.
And drinking with your fellow students.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Yeah, Colleges and Universities often have large libraries. That's where you can learn.

This is the sort of thing that crossed my mind.

It is important to view education as a primarily self-motivated experience. There are a couple of things that can place students in conflict with the system. The first issue can be that the system is too regimented, archaic, or in some way does not maximize learning or do enough of a job tailoring it to each student. The second problem can come when a person goes to college with their skill level and perception of that skill at the same level. When asked to approach things differently there is resistance because there can be an assumption that they know enough already. I don't want to say this is always the case because there can definitely be problems with the system, but I have seen it from both sides of the coin, and there can be a real issue with freshmen coming in with a kind of assumed mastery that isn't realistic. They can get pretty angry if anything conflicts with this view.

The class I taught with this greatest inherent conflict was in music - freshman ear-training. Kids come in having played in a band that won state competitions, having been given a lot of attention for their solo performances at their churches, having gained admiration as talented. Since there is little or no pre-college preparation in theory and skills, they can enter a college ear-training class without the ability to sing a triad. Because they already won prizes without being able to sing a chord in tune or hear it, the assumption is that the curriculum is flawed. How to communicate that the system can help them develop more well-rounded skills that will take down barriers they presently can't see? Sometimes it is not possible, and the mindset of rebellion halts their ability to learn and they remain at their current level.

If preparing for a career in the creative arts, realize that employers can interrupt a natural, personal process just as certainly as any instructor, so even that might be the true lesson. I have heard of creative arts teachers that use uninspired methods, but there are equal problems with resistance from students based on limited assumptions. The best I know to do is take whatever is given and do the best you can with it. There is something that can be learned in each context.

 

[Usehername]

I'm a 1st year at Ryerson, Canada for Fashion Design (4-yr program)

It's important to note that there is a major cultural clash here with the Americans when you use the terms college and university. Canadians know that "college" means "trade school," whereas when an American uses the term they can be referring to a classy university institution, but there is more to it than just this difference.

The end result is that our universities are (theoretically) completely unrelated to careers, and about knowledge for its own sake, which the USA certainly also has in abundance, but they are grouped into the entire post-secondary category (it's just the language here, not the quality differences). Ryerson University is "career focused," which is the antithesis of the university term meant in Canada, and the exception that proves the rule--your program is not meant for anything but to place you in a career. There's nothing wrong at all about this, but it's simply unrelated to the "university experience."

Further information about the differences between CDA and the USA:
Canada's university attendance rate hovers around 25% of the population; USA's rate is in the range of 70-80% (I forget the exact statistic). The history of it goes back to when the USA government paid the tuition for many soldiers who served their time to attend university (in the 1960s-ish), which basically opened the doors for a lot of minorities (socioeconomically, but also racially, because before that university was pretty much just a privileged white person scene) and changed the tenor of what post-secondary education was about in the USA.
Whereas in Canada, that change never really happened as a movement but rather individuals who weren't rich white kids began to enter university programs, so our universities didn't have a movement to respond to, so our universities didn't change much at all.

 

[Habba]

I disagree. I'd agree to this only in certain colleges.

I'm in college and I know exactly what I want and college is just one way to get it. It helps a lot. I'm not there to study. I'm there to become what I want to be.

For example: Someone wants to become a doctor to help people. You can't be a doctor without going through medical college. You'd be sent to court if you perform a surgery without a medical degree.

So, yea... Your statement works with only certain colleges.

Of course, you can't perform certain professions without a formal education. And whole lot of employers will only see you through your achievements at studying.

But when you want to master your trade, the teachings of colleges/universities aren't really optimal. They are meant to reach out for as many people as possible with the least amount of effort required.

 

[Oaky]

^ Yes. When it comes to trade I agree.

 

[Cimarron]

Further information about the differences between CDA and the USA:
Canada's university attendance rate hovers around 25% of the population; USA's rate is in the range of 70-80% (I forget the exact statistic). The history of it goes back to when the USA government paid the tuition for many soldiers who served their time to attend university (in the 1960s-ish), which basically opened the doors for a lot of minorities (socioeconomically, but also racially, because before that university was pretty much just a privileged white person scene) and changed the tenor of what post-secondary education was about in the USA.
Whereas in Canada, that change never really happened as a movement but rather individuals who weren't rich white kids began to enter university programs, so our universities didn't have a movement to respond to, so our universities didn't change much at all.

Thank you. Very interesting.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

In college you learn about yourself. You also learn about others.

Unless your an engineer, or some other crazy math or science major, you don't learn that much of anything.

 

[Blank]

In college you learn about yourself. You also learn about others.

Unless your an engineer, or some other crazy math or science major, you don't learn that much of anything.

Yeah, I haven't learned to read ANY kanji characters in my Japanese major or any piece of grammar. /sarcasm


College is what you make of it.

 

[Usehername]

Thank you. Very interesting.

I didn't realize this until I took composition studies--in Canada, we don't have First Year Composition (created to bridge the gap as a remedial course because of the 1960s movement that brought in new demographics into universities), because our education system never changed from being kinda elitist in attitude. Admitted students were either kids from privileged backgrounds who already had "proper" reading and writing training, or really bright individuals from underprivileged backgrounds fought their way through on their own.

Of course over time this is changing, but the USA had a mass movement that required action, and there was no equivalent movement in Canada.

 

[Venom]

In college you learn about yourself. You also learn about others.

Unless your an engineer, or some other crazy math or science major, you don't learn that much of anything.

Yeah, I haven't learned to read ANY kanji characters in my Japanese major or any piece of grammar. /sarcasm


College is what you make of it.

i completely agree with disco. the only majors where you actually learn something from the material itself:

-engineering, math, physics, chemistry

Even a language major is deceiving because to really become fluent you're going to have to go live there for a while. Ive known more than one person who have majored in French or Italian and they really never actually learned the language in a useful way until they spent time in that country.

I apologize ahead of time if you take offense to this. if it helps: my two majors mean nothing unless you have a PhD in them...

 

[blanclait]

Yeah, I haven't learned to read ANY kanji characters in my Japanese major or any piece of grammar. /sarcasm


College is what you make of it.

well this varies per skill level as well. I for one learned how to draw croquis before I entered university.
So for me, their ineffective method of making us trace figures is laughable and not to mention time consuming. Sure I got few tips and here and there. If i put more time into these projects, sure I'll learn a lot more.

But, if I just went back to my old art studio, I can learn A LOT more in shorter time more effectively. On top of that, I can change the project to focus on my weaknesses.

And
I don't believe this "you get what you put in."
it implies a wrong message. That you can fish out equal knowledge/experience, etc in whatever you do and whichever method you choose.

that is obviously false.

you get what you put in of what that course is offering.
and even if you put same amount of effort, what you get out of it will differ per every class.