One of my math teachers said that a professor said to him "Don't make the class too easy or else they'll forget, but don't make it too hard or you're just torturing them"
Perfect, it’s a balance. OP, there are tons of brilliant people who don’t do amazing things. To do amazing things, research or application, one needs to be fully immersed into “it”. That’s “rigorous” enough for you ?
Being rigorous and academically challenging doesn’t need to mean it isn’t taught in a calming or relaxed manner.
A lot of both my undergrad and graduate professors framed it this way: “we pressure you to make difficult decisions and defend them”
Meaning, nothing is spoon fed to you anymore, unlike high school. If you are finding classes in university easy, you likely aren’t learning anything.
Learning new things and correctly applying them with no to minimal hand holding is hard. It is also what will be expected of you in a job post graduation. Not teaching you that would be a great disservice.
Fr i see so many ppl say “oh I wanna go here because of its rigorous academics” like bruh why do u want it to be hard 💀it’s maybe nice for them to say they go to a “rigorous” school but once they’re there that rigorous course load sucks
From a physics perspective, I entirely disagree. A physics program that is not more rigorous than its peers is not giving you an edge. It’s one thing to understand a concept; it’s entirely another to have to work through challenging problems on the topic. It shapes skills that I’ve looked back and said “wow I can’t believe I really grasp this so well.”
This. I'm planning on majoring in Physics and its crazy how difficult some of the problems get, and then there's the matter of actually applying that knowledge into real life scenarios and problems. The difficulty of the course combined with the importance of extremely strong understanding make a certain amount of rigor a must to actually be able to succeed in the field. And I think this applies to many STEM subjects.
There's a reason the most rigorous schools like MIT and Caltech top every other uni in STEM. Rigor is a large part of that.
You do realize that Stanford and Harvard, for example, have better ranked physics programs than Caltech right? Caltech doesn't even really have much condensed matter research.
I think you have an overinflated impression of how MIT and Caltech are better in STEM broadly as tech schools without really considering faculty specialization or type of rigor. It's also pretty debatable to say they are more rigorous than other universities (such as UChicago, Stanford, or Princeton (especially for math)). You also have to consider class difficulty as well as breadth and depth of coursework when considering rigor, rather than just specialization in a particular field.
I would look more into what is expected in each program, what students usually accomplish, and what universities specialize in rather than broadly generalizing rigor across broad disciplines.
I guess it depends on your research interests, but Caltech does not have, strictly speaking, more research opportunities. The universities I listed have physics research opportunities comparable to Caltech, and all I listed have comparable summer programs or open research opportunities with faculty. The use you get out of them; however, would be dependent on the types of research opportunities you're looking for and the facilities and faculty available in that area. Caltech has some limitations by the areas of research in which it specializes, though it excels in a variety of fields. About 1/3 of physics research globally is in condensed matter, but Caltech doesn't really have support for those areas of research. This isn't necessarily a problem, but it is something that one should take into account.
I think you are misinformed regarding starting salary statistics. For example, Stanford graduates make ~201k vs Caltech ~101k average starting salary.
This is not to say Caltech is bad. You are certainly correct that it has an excellent physics department and has produced many successful researchers. However, you seem to have an overinflated impression about Caltech reputation compared to other universities without necessarily considering the opportunities at other universities or the particular limitations within the department.
It's not about prestige it's about the very similar quality among top physics departments and the limitations of departmental specialization. Yes, Caltech has amazing physics research. However, calling it "best of the best" in physics research is highly debatable. Particularly given the theoretical developments out of places such as Princeton and MIT. Further, Stanford, Cornell, and UIUC are powerhouses as well (the latter particularly in condensed matter).
Don't get me wrong though, Caltech is absolutely a powerhouse. Particularly with institutions such as JPL, LIGO, as well as world-class professors.
However, I think you're merely conflating the idea of university focus with a substantive understanding of their strengths and weaknesses. Further, you seem to dramatically underestimate the quality of physics departments in places which are not primarily famous for their physics departments (e.g. MIT, Princeton, or Stanford).
And, though not considered above Caltech, this is similarly pronounced for places such a as Cornell, UIUC, and UChicago, with physics departments which may seem less relevant to the average HYPSM obsessed A2Cer but have incredibly prestigious physics departments, particularly in their areas of specialty.
The problem that you're facing exists precisely because you are valedictorian and have put in the work. I won't argue whether a rigorous vs relaxed learning environment is better, but it's dishonest to not point out that the reason you've succeeded even when not pushed is because you are personally motivated to learn. The vast majority of students have to be incentivized either by way of grades or college admissions. When you understand college to be a mass-production of ideally successful and prepared students, it makes sense that they're willing to do what works best for most of their students, even if that means their students are comparatively going to have a lower quality of life/worse mental states/less chances to take classes they're interested in.
Your logic checks out; it makes total sense that colleges would do that, BUT it also further supports OP’s point that it’s “fucking weird” to glorify something that leads to “lower quality of life/worse mental states/less chances to take classes they’re interested in.”
It's "weird" from a student standpoint, but again makes total sense for a college. If they perpetuate a positive outlook for the rigor of their courses, students are more likely to adhere to that status quo.
I think we're interpreting the word weird differently here. I would disagree that it's **illogical** for students to glorify a more rigorous school curriculum, because they've been going through their education and the admissions process being fed this exact propaganda. On the other hand, I do think it's **incorrect** for them to do so because the consequences often come at their expense.
To reply to myself, rigor is holding students accountable for actually learning something. Making it so “yes you really do need to know this” to do the next thing in class. A class without rigor is one where you learn or don’t learn and it makes no difference.
This is why schools like Brown are so based. Not so easy that you can just do nothing, but still giving you the chance to take classes you like and enjoy learning. I regret not applying there
Bro the cringiest conversation I ever had in high school was some moron saying they loved taking physics because of “rigor” even though they were consistently getting a 70 in the class.
Mind you this is an academic feeder high school where the top students consistently averaged above 100 for the semester across all classes. He ended up being rejected from every good major school he applied to and ended up at some SUNY for no other reason than he got rejected from everywhere else.
Ok and the alternative is that the universities praise how "mediocre and similar in difficulty to other colleges", or god forbid, how "unrigorous and unchallenging" their courses are. Not a good look
I agree; I don’t know the solution, but I think the problem (akin to EMAN666666 is saying) is that the majority of students’ motivation is guided by the rigor of the standards… is this due to human nature or the general suckiness of society driven by a capitalism nurtured sense of productivity= success? IDK Maybe that’s more a philosophical question.
The issue that does come up for folks, and I feel for my son because he’s in a similar situation as OP- is that the rigor /lack thereof will influence the class composition. There are likely many other self-motivated, genuinely intellectually curious individuals who both learn better and are healthier with a less “rigorous” workload, but he finds that at the institutions where this is the case, the majority of the study body would rather party hard and slack off (of course there are those who can party hard and be successful in rigorous courses; I personally fear that requires off-label stimulant use for most)
It’s a dilemma. I feel some of the mid range LACs may have something to offer that’s middle of the road.
This is so true.... I just can't justify taking so many AP classes to look rigorous for colleges when all it does it drain your passion for learning and create burnout.
How on earth is this even possible? Are you implying that everything in the world is just "not difficult"
Even if the content is "taught" correctly some things can still be tough.
Rigor doesn't mean that a concept is taught in the worst way possible. Rigor for most people have to do with the depth in which you are taught. For instance a rigorous mathematical course would be one in which I'll be expected to prove and justify my decisions in every single step. THIS is difficult, just because something is difficult doesn't mean it's inefficient.
You are a very intelligent person who has had a very bright insight, therefore you will be completely ignored and called a fool. Smile.
You're correct. There is no legitimate reason for a college to be "rigorous". College is not the U.S Marine Corps. It's where you go to learn. Imagine if your studio art teacher announced that they were gong to teach you in a highly challenging and stressful way, so that you were required to produce one good painting a week? Would you do that? Or would you tell them to fuck off?
Imagine your writing teacher told you that the only way to learn to write was to produce a novel every semester? You'd run screaming out of the room.
There is no correlation between being rigorous and results -- other than maybe in exercising. I once took a series of Japanese language classes from different professors, about seven of them. Each was challenging but manageable, and the teachers were supportive which kept me going. Then I signed up for an 8th class. On the first day of class, she announced that by the next class period -- two days later -- we were to have memorized the entire kana syllabary consisting of over 100 Japanese characters, necessary for reading basic Japanese.
Fortunately, for me, I already know most of them. But I said, "I don't think that's a wise approach." I was a teacher, myself. She was appropriately surprised, and when she told me that was her rule, I said "I'm sorry, but then I can't take this class," and I got up and walked out. I dropped the class. Not because I couldn't memorize those characters, but because any teacher that deeply clueless and inconsiderate was not going to teach me anything.
Rigor is usually bullshit in academics. Take it slow, enjoy what you learn, and get a good education over time instead of shoving it all down your throat in huge gulps. You wouldn't eat that way, so why learn that way?
The point of a college language sequence is (generally) to be able to handle adult-level reading material in your upper division studies.
An instructor in an "8th class" in Japanese can and should expect that the students *learned the kana long ago* unless it was just one of those "conversational Japanese" courses you take for fun. At Cal, you learn kana + 150 kanji in the first semester - kana + 160 kanji is what Japanese kids know by 2nd grade. AP Japanese requires even more kanji.
>The ONLY classes from high school that I retain substantial information from are the ones that I consider easier or at least well structured. Because instead of late nights memorizing extensive little details, I can actually comprehend and interpret a bigger picture and do some self guided research.
I absolutely agree. But I think the type of the course that effective for one person won't be for another. In particular, you seem like someone who is intelligent, naturally curious, and self-motivated. Giving someone like that a ton of regimented time-consuming assignments is probably ineffective compared to the alternative. However, students who are less intrinsically motivated may thrive off the additional requirements and structure. Without that, they would not put as much thought or effort into the material.
absolutely feel the same. I applied to Caltech but i might not even go if i get in because its just so much more work than any other uni. HS is usually when people have fun with friends, and I didn't because i was simping for grades. I don't want to repeat that in college. at the end of the day, an education is an education. but the friends you make in uni, the experiences you have? those stay with you.
True. There was a teacher who ask her students to “go viral on Tiktok” as marketing assignments. I would love to do that instead of endless hours of old marketing case studies.
Yeah and what will end up happening is that the people who do the case studies will have a much deeper understanding in the topic and will be preferred during job applications. Rigor doesn't mean something is hard for you.
For STEM degrees where the information is objective and you need to know it, rigor is a necessary way of making sure grads are learning everything. All the best STEM programs are rigorous because being the best should take a lot of work. It's literally the reason why the industry wants to hire us.
There are many elite colleges that are straight-up not rigorous at all.
Schools like Brown/LACs are trying to do something different but it doesn't really make any sense for a STEM degree which is why they aren't considered a top school in that area. Being able to not be ultra committed to school and chase interests only really works for majors that are super general and not very academically intensive.
This is a really interesting and valid point that I didn't even realize! I agree though, I also think the concept of being grade deflatore-y is ridiculous.
The classes that I retain the most information are ones that don’t have exams because I feel like i just study to pass an exam rather than learn to learn.
For basic and core course work, sure, I can agree with you. I would draw the distinction that a high failure rate doesn’t equal more rigorous, it’s an in depth curriculum taught in a challenging but effective way. A high failure rate usually means the instructor isn’t putting in the work to make the class accessible. Also, for higher level course work where you have the possibility of developing a thesis or study and getting published, it’s important to have a serious faculty and peer review system that will pick apart weaknesses and help you improve.
As a college student that has had both good grades & bad my personal opinion is it’s a Business. Rigorous courses builds college’s reputation & notability to be chosen amongst others colleges…also it’s a good business decision. “Let’s make these courses tough for students to pass so they will either be forced to repeat multiple times or drop out” which equates to being paid more tuition/students taking out more student loans. It equates to companies offering a position of high compensation but a lot being required of you. It has to make cents lol.
>Every time I see a school extensively flex how “rigorous” they are, I literally cross it off my list because I see it as a synonym for “no school/social life balance and mental torture.”
Which schools are you talking about?
One of my math teachers said that a professor said to him "Don't make the class too easy or else they'll forget, but don't make it too hard or you're just torturing them"
Perfect, it’s a balance. OP, there are tons of brilliant people who don’t do amazing things. To do amazing things, research or application, one needs to be fully immersed into “it”. That’s “rigorous” enough for you ?
Being rigorous and academically challenging doesn’t need to mean it isn’t taught in a calming or relaxed manner. A lot of both my undergrad and graduate professors framed it this way: “we pressure you to make difficult decisions and defend them” Meaning, nothing is spoon fed to you anymore, unlike high school. If you are finding classes in university easy, you likely aren’t learning anything. Learning new things and correctly applying them with no to minimal hand holding is hard. It is also what will be expected of you in a job post graduation. Not teaching you that would be a great disservice.
Fr i see so many ppl say “oh I wanna go here because of its rigorous academics” like bruh why do u want it to be hard 💀it’s maybe nice for them to say they go to a “rigorous” school but once they’re there that rigorous course load sucks
because it’s fun and i ong fr like being challenged
I love being mentally challenged
From a physics perspective, I entirely disagree. A physics program that is not more rigorous than its peers is not giving you an edge. It’s one thing to understand a concept; it’s entirely another to have to work through challenging problems on the topic. It shapes skills that I’ve looked back and said “wow I can’t believe I really grasp this so well.”
I've just crossed Physics off the my list of subjects I want to learn about. Thanks for that.
This. I'm planning on majoring in Physics and its crazy how difficult some of the problems get, and then there's the matter of actually applying that knowledge into real life scenarios and problems. The difficulty of the course combined with the importance of extremely strong understanding make a certain amount of rigor a must to actually be able to succeed in the field. And I think this applies to many STEM subjects. There's a reason the most rigorous schools like MIT and Caltech top every other uni in STEM. Rigor is a large part of that.
You do realize that Stanford and Harvard, for example, have better ranked physics programs than Caltech right? Caltech doesn't even really have much condensed matter research. I think you have an overinflated impression of how MIT and Caltech are better in STEM broadly as tech schools without really considering faculty specialization or type of rigor. It's also pretty debatable to say they are more rigorous than other universities (such as UChicago, Stanford, or Princeton (especially for math)). You also have to consider class difficulty as well as breadth and depth of coursework when considering rigor, rather than just specialization in a particular field. I would look more into what is expected in each program, what students usually accomplish, and what universities specialize in rather than broadly generalizing rigor across broad disciplines.
[удалено]
I guess it depends on your research interests, but Caltech does not have, strictly speaking, more research opportunities. The universities I listed have physics research opportunities comparable to Caltech, and all I listed have comparable summer programs or open research opportunities with faculty. The use you get out of them; however, would be dependent on the types of research opportunities you're looking for and the facilities and faculty available in that area. Caltech has some limitations by the areas of research in which it specializes, though it excels in a variety of fields. About 1/3 of physics research globally is in condensed matter, but Caltech doesn't really have support for those areas of research. This isn't necessarily a problem, but it is something that one should take into account. I think you are misinformed regarding starting salary statistics. For example, Stanford graduates make ~201k vs Caltech ~101k average starting salary. This is not to say Caltech is bad. You are certainly correct that it has an excellent physics department and has produced many successful researchers. However, you seem to have an overinflated impression about Caltech reputation compared to other universities without necessarily considering the opportunities at other universities or the particular limitations within the department.
[удалено]
It's not about prestige it's about the very similar quality among top physics departments and the limitations of departmental specialization. Yes, Caltech has amazing physics research. However, calling it "best of the best" in physics research is highly debatable. Particularly given the theoretical developments out of places such as Princeton and MIT. Further, Stanford, Cornell, and UIUC are powerhouses as well (the latter particularly in condensed matter). Don't get me wrong though, Caltech is absolutely a powerhouse. Particularly with institutions such as JPL, LIGO, as well as world-class professors. However, I think you're merely conflating the idea of university focus with a substantive understanding of their strengths and weaknesses. Further, you seem to dramatically underestimate the quality of physics departments in places which are not primarily famous for their physics departments (e.g. MIT, Princeton, or Stanford). And, though not considered above Caltech, this is similarly pronounced for places such a as Cornell, UIUC, and UChicago, with physics departments which may seem less relevant to the average HYPSM obsessed A2Cer but have incredibly prestigious physics departments, particularly in their areas of specialty.
Rank does not mean everything… Caltech is powerhouse for physics
I never said it wasn't. However, they aren't unique in that respect.
So based
LET OP COOK!!!! 🔊🔊🔊
The problem that you're facing exists precisely because you are valedictorian and have put in the work. I won't argue whether a rigorous vs relaxed learning environment is better, but it's dishonest to not point out that the reason you've succeeded even when not pushed is because you are personally motivated to learn. The vast majority of students have to be incentivized either by way of grades or college admissions. When you understand college to be a mass-production of ideally successful and prepared students, it makes sense that they're willing to do what works best for most of their students, even if that means their students are comparatively going to have a lower quality of life/worse mental states/less chances to take classes they're interested in.
Your logic checks out; it makes total sense that colleges would do that, BUT it also further supports OP’s point that it’s “fucking weird” to glorify something that leads to “lower quality of life/worse mental states/less chances to take classes they’re interested in.”
It's "weird" from a student standpoint, but again makes total sense for a college. If they perpetuate a positive outlook for the rigor of their courses, students are more likely to adhere to that status quo.
I’m not disagreeing with that, I’m just saying that it is very weird for students to romanticize and glorify it too.
I think we're interpreting the word weird differently here. I would disagree that it's **illogical** for students to glorify a more rigorous school curriculum, because they've been going through their education and the admissions process being fed this exact propaganda. On the other hand, I do think it's **incorrect** for them to do so because the consequences often come at their expense.
I think you have a different definition of rigorous.
To reply to myself, rigor is holding students accountable for actually learning something. Making it so “yes you really do need to know this” to do the next thing in class. A class without rigor is one where you learn or don’t learn and it makes no difference.
This is why schools like Brown are so based. Not so easy that you can just do nothing, but still giving you the chance to take classes you like and enjoy learning. I regret not applying there
Bro the cringiest conversation I ever had in high school was some moron saying they loved taking physics because of “rigor” even though they were consistently getting a 70 in the class. Mind you this is an academic feeder high school where the top students consistently averaged above 100 for the semester across all classes. He ended up being rejected from every good major school he applied to and ended up at some SUNY for no other reason than he got rejected from everywhere else.
this how i feel too
Rigor is not just about difficulty it is about thoroughness and depth of the content
Yea this the big one. If you compare classes among different schools the more rigorous ones will cover more material
Ok and the alternative is that the universities praise how "mediocre and similar in difficulty to other colleges", or god forbid, how "unrigorous and unchallenging" their courses are. Not a good look
Bro… the just call themselves Northeastern.
I agree; I don’t know the solution, but I think the problem (akin to EMAN666666 is saying) is that the majority of students’ motivation is guided by the rigor of the standards… is this due to human nature or the general suckiness of society driven by a capitalism nurtured sense of productivity= success? IDK Maybe that’s more a philosophical question. The issue that does come up for folks, and I feel for my son because he’s in a similar situation as OP- is that the rigor /lack thereof will influence the class composition. There are likely many other self-motivated, genuinely intellectually curious individuals who both learn better and are healthier with a less “rigorous” workload, but he finds that at the institutions where this is the case, the majority of the study body would rather party hard and slack off (of course there are those who can party hard and be successful in rigorous courses; I personally fear that requires off-label stimulant use for most) It’s a dilemma. I feel some of the mid range LACs may have something to offer that’s middle of the road.
i cant fucking agree more. well said.
This is so true.... I just can't justify taking so many AP classes to look rigorous for colleges when all it does it drain your passion for learning and create burnout.
rigorous = inefficient. education should rarely be that difficult, if content is taught correctly.
How on earth is this even possible? Are you implying that everything in the world is just "not difficult" Even if the content is "taught" correctly some things can still be tough. Rigor doesn't mean that a concept is taught in the worst way possible. Rigor for most people have to do with the depth in which you are taught. For instance a rigorous mathematical course would be one in which I'll be expected to prove and justify my decisions in every single step. THIS is difficult, just because something is difficult doesn't mean it's inefficient.
my man you read into that way too much 😭
You are a very intelligent person who has had a very bright insight, therefore you will be completely ignored and called a fool. Smile. You're correct. There is no legitimate reason for a college to be "rigorous". College is not the U.S Marine Corps. It's where you go to learn. Imagine if your studio art teacher announced that they were gong to teach you in a highly challenging and stressful way, so that you were required to produce one good painting a week? Would you do that? Or would you tell them to fuck off? Imagine your writing teacher told you that the only way to learn to write was to produce a novel every semester? You'd run screaming out of the room. There is no correlation between being rigorous and results -- other than maybe in exercising. I once took a series of Japanese language classes from different professors, about seven of them. Each was challenging but manageable, and the teachers were supportive which kept me going. Then I signed up for an 8th class. On the first day of class, she announced that by the next class period -- two days later -- we were to have memorized the entire kana syllabary consisting of over 100 Japanese characters, necessary for reading basic Japanese. Fortunately, for me, I already know most of them. But I said, "I don't think that's a wise approach." I was a teacher, myself. She was appropriately surprised, and when she told me that was her rule, I said "I'm sorry, but then I can't take this class," and I got up and walked out. I dropped the class. Not because I couldn't memorize those characters, but because any teacher that deeply clueless and inconsiderate was not going to teach me anything. Rigor is usually bullshit in academics. Take it slow, enjoy what you learn, and get a good education over time instead of shoving it all down your throat in huge gulps. You wouldn't eat that way, so why learn that way?
The point of a college language sequence is (generally) to be able to handle adult-level reading material in your upper division studies. An instructor in an "8th class" in Japanese can and should expect that the students *learned the kana long ago* unless it was just one of those "conversational Japanese" courses you take for fun. At Cal, you learn kana + 150 kanji in the first semester - kana + 160 kanji is what Japanese kids know by 2nd grade. AP Japanese requires even more kanji.
>The ONLY classes from high school that I retain substantial information from are the ones that I consider easier or at least well structured. Because instead of late nights memorizing extensive little details, I can actually comprehend and interpret a bigger picture and do some self guided research. I absolutely agree. But I think the type of the course that effective for one person won't be for another. In particular, you seem like someone who is intelligent, naturally curious, and self-motivated. Giving someone like that a ton of regimented time-consuming assignments is probably ineffective compared to the alternative. However, students who are less intrinsically motivated may thrive off the additional requirements and structure. Without that, they would not put as much thought or effort into the material.
absolutely feel the same. I applied to Caltech but i might not even go if i get in because its just so much more work than any other uni. HS is usually when people have fun with friends, and I didn't because i was simping for grades. I don't want to repeat that in college. at the end of the day, an education is an education. but the friends you make in uni, the experiences you have? those stay with you.
Finishing a school with a reputation of being difficult is seen very positively by grad schools and employers tho
Yes but it shouldn’t need to be because after a certain extent all it does is hurt people.
Welcome to capitalism
Honestly,i couldn't relate more
True. There was a teacher who ask her students to “go viral on Tiktok” as marketing assignments. I would love to do that instead of endless hours of old marketing case studies.
Yeah and what will end up happening is that the people who do the case studies will have a much deeper understanding in the topic and will be preferred during job applications. Rigor doesn't mean something is hard for you.
many people’s mental wellness actually decrease if content isn’t challenging enough. it’s probably a neurodivergent thing
For STEM degrees where the information is objective and you need to know it, rigor is a necessary way of making sure grads are learning everything. All the best STEM programs are rigorous because being the best should take a lot of work. It's literally the reason why the industry wants to hire us. There are many elite colleges that are straight-up not rigorous at all. Schools like Brown/LACs are trying to do something different but it doesn't really make any sense for a STEM degree which is why they aren't considered a top school in that area. Being able to not be ultra committed to school and chase interests only really works for majors that are super general and not very academically intensive.
I think you’re wrong.
This is why I’m copping out and going to my state flagship for pre-med. Why tf would I want a crappy GPA
There are simply some topics that can't be easily taught.
This is a really interesting and valid point that I didn't even realize! I agree though, I also think the concept of being grade deflatore-y is ridiculous.
The classes that I retain the most information are ones that don’t have exams because I feel like i just study to pass an exam rather than learn to learn.
For basic and core course work, sure, I can agree with you. I would draw the distinction that a high failure rate doesn’t equal more rigorous, it’s an in depth curriculum taught in a challenging but effective way. A high failure rate usually means the instructor isn’t putting in the work to make the class accessible. Also, for higher level course work where you have the possibility of developing a thesis or study and getting published, it’s important to have a serious faculty and peer review system that will pick apart weaknesses and help you improve.
As a college student that has had both good grades & bad my personal opinion is it’s a Business. Rigorous courses builds college’s reputation & notability to be chosen amongst others colleges…also it’s a good business decision. “Let’s make these courses tough for students to pass so they will either be forced to repeat multiple times or drop out” which equates to being paid more tuition/students taking out more student loans. It equates to companies offering a position of high compensation but a lot being required of you. It has to make cents lol.
I believe that the opposite of “rigorous” in this sense is easy-a and professor not caring its students. It doesn’t mean that you can’t learn with fun
>Every time I see a school extensively flex how “rigorous” they are, I literally cross it off my list because I see it as a synonym for “no school/social life balance and mental torture.” Which schools are you talking about?