You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Most undergrad classes are functionally "history of x" or "here are some things that are types of x" or "750 names and/or numbers about x," and even the ones that aren't seem to involve working as hard as possible to keep students from doing or even looking directly at x
Looking back I'm genuinely stunned at how little of anything *happened* in those classrooms, if you exclude monologues & bubble tests. Even student discussions were pretty bad, usually initiated by force by a professor & almost always about a profoundly uninteresting question
Yes, there's great variance between universities, fields, programs, etc. I'm more interested in arguing about what x can reasonably look like with a room full of inexperienced people than trying to explain what "most" means, so please spare me
I actually think this is a hard problem for universities. People seem to do most of their actual learning when they're either operating under direct mentorship/apprenticeship or building/practicing on their own and/or autodidacting with more limited direct mentorship
University structure remains largely unchanged despite broad expert agreement that people don't learn very much that way, and I honestly think most admin think undergrads are too stupid for a real education. And anyway, they seem happy to pay 5-6 figs for lectures + bubble tests
A lot of people *could* hire a very competent expert in their field for 10-15 hours/week to guide a more productive process, but they wouldn't be able to get loans for it, and depending on the field it may be legally or practically impossible for them to work
If you want my maximally cynical take, it's that I think these places mostly exist to provide certificates to the sort of people who will later become major alumni donors, and the especially brilliant professors & prodigies are no less window dressing than the student athletes
This wasn't my experience in an engineering degree at...all? Sometimes we were definitely operating at a degree of abstraction that obscured the subject, but that always felt like a pedagogical necessity, not a trick.
It seems that the STEM subjects have their act together better than most of the rest of academia. If your core/gen-ed courses also weren't like that, then that's awesome and where did you attend?
sounds like you took some social science classes too! IME the better undergraduate classes were the ones that were *not* like this, and the undergraduate classes that fit this pattern solidified my opinion that basically a lot of college degrees are overpriced/bad product
What is the difference between those things and "doing or looking directly at x"?
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
