Pieces of Advice for the Ideal University Education - 1

This post is about how to achieve an ideal education system in universities. I tried my best to mention  all facts that need to be either changed or improved. As this is going to be a long list, I have divided this post into subsections. Interested readers are more than welcome to take a look at my other posts about this.

1. Attendance/participation points should completely be removed

Extremely important for fair grading. One should always keep in mind that, all university students (except for a very small minority) are grown-up people. Nobody has the right to force them to either attend or participate in lectures. One can encourage them for attending and participating in lectures, but nobody can force them. If the grading system is based on a catalog (simply, a student is being graded solely on the points he/she earns from the exams. Letter grades are distributed only based on this. Exam success of a student does not affect other students' grades), this is may not be a serious problem. However, if the final grading is based on a curve system, every students' grades affect the rest as well. And, points given based on attendance/participation may lead to serious unfair situations.

Let me give you a simple example:

Let's imagine a student who studies at home/dorm room all the time, and who is also enthusiastic about learning and exploring new things. However, he/she never attends classes. Let's assume that the subject is Time Series Analysis. He/she knows all the aspects of this topic, all the methods used, all the tricky facts, mathematical backgrounds, etc.

Now let's imagine another type of student, who attends all lectures but plays some computer games at the very back seat, is not interested in the lectures, not even listens to what is being taught. At the end of each lecture, he/she signs the attendance list and leaves the class.

Finally, let's assume that the grading system is based on a curve and there is one final exam. The enthusiastic student (1st example) does better than the other student in the exam. 

Unfortunately, there is a possibility that the enthusiastic student achieves a lower letter grade than the other one. I am not saying this is very likely but possible. Therefore; no matter what, we should eliminate this possibility and remove attendance/participation grades.

Here, one can argue that attendance can objectively be measured by the attendance sheets. Okay, that is right. But then, how can you objectively measure participation? Should participation points be distributed based on the number of questions asked in each lecture? Or, will the number of points differ based on the quality of each question? (By the way, what does a qualified/unqualified question mean? As long as a question is about the topic, who can ever label a question as a good or bad one?) And last but not least, what about those students who are very much interested in the lecture but too shy to participate?...

An example about myself: I once signed up for a really interesting lecture in university. I was extremely curious about the topic, however, I even had no clue about where the lecture hall was. I didn't appear in any of the lectures or tutorials. But, I have read all the recommended books, studied every single lecture slide word by word, I have learned that topic by heart (By the way, I believe that you can feel it if you learn something. You do not need any tests or exams to confirm your knowledge). In the end; I have aced the exam, achieved the highest grade among all students, and got a small prize from my professor. For my example, who can ever claim that I have not learned the subject well enough?...

Let's be honest: Being physically present in a class and asking questions just to collect more points means nothing at all unless you are enthusiastic and dedicated to learning by heart.

2. In exams, analytical type of questions should have the priority 

In my opinion, if students solely memorize important equations and definitions and do well in the exam, that exam is insufficient to evaluate students deep enough. As I am an economist, my example is going to be based on economics. However, it applies to other disciplines as well.

Let's take a look at one of the main subjects of macroeconomics, the calculation of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of countries. The equation is as follows: 

Y = C + I + G +(X-M)

Y: Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

C: Total Consumption

I: Total Investment

G: Total Government Spending

(X-M): Net Exports (Total Exports - Total Imports)

This is a very simple example, but let's assume that all the inputs are given in the exam and calculation of GDP level is asked. I would not say that this is a good exam question. Why?

Because this is a very simple equation that appears in almost every economics textbook. Students tend to memorize it rather than analyzing its inputs. Instead of this basic calculation, for example, a question like "Discuss the evolution of cryptocurrencies and their long-term effects on the economy" would be a far better exam question. Because, it encourages students to analyze the possible effects of cryptocurrencies on the economy, to do basic forecasting on their evolution, and even to do a basic regression to see the relationship between them. 

3. Number of professors that has active market experience must be increased

Very, very critical. My examples are again going to be based on economics but can be applied to all disciplines. All future bankers, brokers, dealers, auditors, etc. that are going to actively take a part in economic institutions are educated in universities. But it is impossible to expect to be successful in the market solely based on the theoretical knowledge given in the universities. For example, you can perfectly learn how to price an option using the Black-Scholes method. However; when you start to work in an investment bank (let's say in the derivatives desk), you will realize that real life is much more complex than theories. To be more comfortable in such situations, professors that have active market experience (They usually give seminar lectures) play a crucial role. Let me underline this: I am definitely not saying that you should never mind theories/theoretical knowledge. I am saying that theories and practical knowledge/experience must go in line! After all, all practical applications have roots back in related theories. However; being aware of how markets operate in the university, even experiencing the real-life applications if possible, would be very helpful to students.

Readers that are interested in the second part of this post are more than welcome to take a look at my other post titled as: "Pieces of Advice for the Ideal University Education - 2".