> Once you get it, it's like vacation. 20 hours max of classes per week, no homework, no practicals
When I studied philosophy here in Belgium, I attended about 10 hours of classes a week on average, and while we did have a whole bunch of papers to write every semester, overall it wasn't particularly taxing. But having a light course load allowed me to dive much more deeply into topics of interest, from the ancient sophists to the history of economics, stuff that was never going to get me better grades but that was fascinating in its own right. I also spent a lot of time at the student newspaper learning how to code, how to do print design, how to write and at the end how to manage a newsroom.
Now, more than five years later I'm back in school in an intensive statistics program, and while it's much more challenging than philosophy was, that doesn't necessarily make it better: I'm building up a huge list of "things to study after I graduate because I don't have time now" and even if I wanted to participate in e.g. the student council, I don't know where I would find the energy.
If universities are supposed to educate us to become well-rounded individuals, pushing your students to the limit so there isn't time for anything else is not necessarily such a great strategy.
I'm fully aware many people would just use any free time you give them to party. But that's part of what makes this so sad. If people never have to learn how to meaningfully organize their lives outside of school, there's a good chance they still won't know how to once they've got a job.
My problem is not with the hours of work you have to put it, but when you get a degree in X or Y you are expected to know certain things, and there's a certain amount of work and experience you need to have developed by the time you get your degree.
I just don't see how Japanese could be way more efficient than Westerners who put 50-60 hours per week (speaking from my experience) and get to the same level in the end. And there is no surprise, they don't. They clearly don't have the level to compete at the University level, both in experience as well as general knowledge.
And that's a shame, because the University should be about the subject you are the most interested to study, and therefore there should be no restraint as to how much you would be willing to learn, instead of having so few hours per week.
In the end, the cost is on society as companies waste a year or more to educate new graduates to make them into productive employees.
When I studied philosophy here in Belgium, I attended about 10 hours of classes a week on average, and while we did have a whole bunch of papers to write every semester, overall it wasn't particularly taxing. But having a light course load allowed me to dive much more deeply into topics of interest, from the ancient sophists to the history of economics, stuff that was never going to get me better grades but that was fascinating in its own right. I also spent a lot of time at the student newspaper learning how to code, how to do print design, how to write and at the end how to manage a newsroom.
Now, more than five years later I'm back in school in an intensive statistics program, and while it's much more challenging than philosophy was, that doesn't necessarily make it better: I'm building up a huge list of "things to study after I graduate because I don't have time now" and even if I wanted to participate in e.g. the student council, I don't know where I would find the energy.
If universities are supposed to educate us to become well-rounded individuals, pushing your students to the limit so there isn't time for anything else is not necessarily such a great strategy.
I'm fully aware many people would just use any free time you give them to party. But that's part of what makes this so sad. If people never have to learn how to meaningfully organize their lives outside of school, there's a good chance they still won't know how to once they've got a job.