The state of American universities

deerPropaganda

he can't keep getting away with it
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Oct 15, 2019
My friend is only a semester from graduating. He was registering for classes when he sent me this:

image0[792].png

That is the description for a class based entirely off of jack the ripper in a well accredited university. This wouldn't be an issue, except he has to choose between this and intro. to gender studies in order for the credits to count.

I want to know what everyone thinks about this. do you care? why or why not?
 
I say he goes for the jack the ripper course over the gender one.

70% of even "useful" college courses are filled with filler so this stuff doesn't bother me in isolation. As long as nearly every entry-level job that can be learned within a month of job-specifc training continues to require a 4-year degree the college scam will keep going unabated.

It's worse when the course sounds official then the teacher rambles about their personal politics for nearly every lecture like a friend of mine described one of his UCLA classes. That's how you end up with the professional class all being drooling retards despite the letters next to their names.
 
Silly courses that count for distribution requirements are nothing new. In fact, your friend is lucky that he has an option other than "Woke Indoctrination 101".
 
A class on Jack the Ripper, in theory, sounds interesting, but that "issues of class, gender, and race as they relate to society, crime, and the media" line practically sinks all chance of that and it'll probably be a standard college course.
 
Does the gender stuff actually counts towards something more than the credits?


the school changed the curriculum in the past year and he is now required to take classes that fall under a humanities/libral arts area. Another example of this is a class he's currently taking, called 'history of african american cinema".
 
the school changed the curriculum in the past year and he is now required to take classes that fall under a humanities/libral arts area. Another example of this is a class he's currently taking, called 'history of african american cinema".
Oh, it's that bit where the administration harps about helping people broaden their horizons. Almost feels like an way to keep their less popular classes around, but hardly anyone sees it as an scam.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: deerPropaganda
Right, the purpose of colleges at this point isn't to actually provide value in terms of training or productivity, it's to groom young people for the path of being a good, unproblematic drone.

You have to figure if someone's castrated enough to go into tens of thousands of dollars worth of debt to be told they're going to waste their precious time on this earth taking useless courses like gender studies, then it's a good idea to hire them as a corporate entity because they won't actually have the backbone to demand things like fair wages or the ability to have a life outside of work.

The thing is years back I'd hear everyone openly acknowledge how they didn't feel like college was going to help them that much, but oh well, it's how you make more money. Looking back it should've immediately been obvious that allowing institutions with questionable value to serve as social gatekeepers was a poor state of affairs.
 
I didn't even know this was a new thing. I had to take a goddamn art history class as a prerequisite to get into my radiography program.

Sure, I also took a bunch of things like anatomy and physiology, intro to radiography, and other things that have to deal with what I would actually be doing, but it still pisses me off that I had to listen to a gay dude lecture about how 1920s German artists drew a bunch of stupid bullshit that didn't look like anything and how it was so stunning and brave in a post-war era.
 
Sorry to bring back that thread from the dead and if that article don't fit perfectly this thread but there's an article wondering if fat jokes is a threat to American universities.
September 21, 2024

Are Fat Jokes an Existential Threat to American Universities?​

By Robert Weissberg


When I entered Syracuse University in 1959, the doctrine of in loco parentis, from the Latin, in place of the parent, ruled. Never openly admitted, but crystal clear was the aim of thwarting sex, so freshmen women were required live in dorms with strict curfews while being allowed to visit male-only dorms a few hours a week (and never at night) where the doors had to be half open, and if women sat on a man’s bed, one foot had to be one the floor. Nor were there any tales of drunken sexuality in the “Greek” fraternity/sorority system. To emphasize this anti-sex mentality, all male first year students had to dutifully listen to Dean Noble (his actual name) lecture us on the perils of masturbation. No wonder many married shortly after graduation.

By contrast, today’s campuses are “sex positive.” Co-ed dorms and bathrooms are commonplace, student health centers provide free contraception and, if necessary, help secure abortions. “Sex weeks” showcase every imaginable sexual activity including many unthinkable on the college campus of 1959—sex toys, anal sex, bondage, and even sex for the disabled. Significantly, administrations ignore alcohol infused parties where inebriated undergraduates routinely copulate. For these self-blinded administrators, their only worry is whether everything is “consensual” according to the latest feminist wooly-headed definition of “consent.” Sex per se, however, is irrelevant.
 
  • Lunacy
Reactions: Cherry Eyed Hamster
Credit system is retarded. Western education is a nepobaby diploma mill, barely better than India.
 
STEM departments are usually kept segregated from the humanities departments by completely separate campuses for a reason. Let's not pretend that the "humanities" are even pretending to be real fields of study any more.
 
Back