I don't see anything in your response about success.
It's true that if you want credit for completing a major, then it is necessary for you to actually complete the major, but that still doesn't equate to graduating at or near the top of your class.
It's true that if you want credit for completing a major, then it is necessary for you to actually complete the major, but that still doesn't equate to graduating at or near the top of your class.
I don't quite agree with his overall conclusion that university education is pure compliance off of this one gripe though. Moreover, I do believe that many universities allow you to bypass certain module via a test / some other demonstration.
I don't think it is purely or even mostly based on compliance. I was responding to:
> How in the world does "being compliant to authority" contribute to university success
by indicating one way the compliance contributes to success.
I completed all of the courses for the major, with the exception of CS101, introduction to computer programming. I took many classes that ostensibly had a prerequisite on CS101, including additional nonrequired courses that could have easily been substituted for CS101. Nonetheless, as you say, it was "necessary for [me] to actually complete the major" by going back after taking CS4xx to complete CS101. Was this a required part of the major? yes. Was it a valuable part to be required without exception? Maybe, but I tend to not think so.
> I don't see anything in your response about success
"Not graduating" is a pretty clear way in my mind to "not succeed." I indicated that compliance to authority in my experience was necessary for graduation, which implies that it was necessary for success, does it not?
> graduating at or near the top of your class
ok?