As of 2020s and much earlier, <Ciro Santilli> believes that <undergrad> studies were fundamentally broken (considering the <Information Age> which completely changed what would be possible) because university had only two goals, with the exception of a few enlightened professors:
* rank students from worse to best so they can get into <PhD> programs.

  For regular jobs grades didn't even matter as much compared the prestige of your university (and therefore, <university entry exam> grades) and your ability to stand the stress of exams to get minimal passing grade.

  In particular, being able to rank requires setting the difficulty level at a point where you can see a <Normal distribution> in grades, and not have everyone at either 0 nor 100%.

  Also, this split could be caused by either shitty learning materials/conditions, or by mere volume. It doesn't matter.
* get money from the students. Of course, in countries where university is "free", this means reporting how many students you had to some government office so they can give you a corresponding budget. But you still have an incentive to enroll as many as possible.
As a result, most students, who would not go on to do a <PhD> essentially do a simple trade: all their time, and possibly some money, in exchange for embuing themselves with the incredible name of a respected institution so they can get better jobs later on.

Beauty, deep understanding, and learning awesome things comes basically as a second thought.


University should focus on inspiring and not on evaluating

ID: university-should-focus-on-inspiring-and-not-on-evaluating