Universities As Brand Names

As far as success of these univ (North Amperican and European) is concerned, biggest reason is that they attract best students from the whole world. Best of the best from UET, GIKI, NUST and LUMS will find places in leading universities of the World and then everywork done by them will be considered the research work done by the university. After the studies, students get attractive jobs and never return back homes. In my opinion, A university is good or bad depending on its students and teachers abilities. How can a third world country compete with a university of richer country when it is attracting professionals from the whole third world and the best talent of these poor countries is drained to these richer universities.

While a lot of student who do Unergraduate studies at local universities and get admission in highly ranked universities, the truth is that basics of such brilliant students at under graduate level are established by the local pakistani Universities who are perhaps as good as US universities (On undergraduate level studies). I am not exaggerating here.
I did Elect Engineering from UET (with normal marks as I was an average student there). And got a chance to study abroad. I have class fellows from Lebanon, Russia,Syria, China, france, Spain, Mexico, Peru etc. I can see that What I studied at UEt was exactly what the French students studied here at undergrad level. Standard of chinese students was also good. But other countries I mentioned above don`t have a good educational standard. they are still stick with the older things which don`t give them good insight in highly competitive fields of electronics.

So, Atleast, on undergradute level, I think that any university can be good and Pakistani universities are. But when it comes to higher research it needs a lot of money and a lot of talented researchers who get enough money an are not attracted by more salaries and benefits by first world universities.

first of all i think you are forgetting the main difference in a school and a uni, in school people teach you and tell you how to learn and how to cope with your syllabus. but i think uni is a bit different in this reagard, there you ll be having all sort of facilities, like library and etc, but no one will tell you how to do what?
coz you supposed to know all that (thats why you are there!)
and teacher will only be of some help when u got stuck some where, so as far as i think it do not requires any other qualification for teaching at uni.

i dont know a lot about the unis in north america but as far as i know they are an aw-full lot better than paki ones.

i visited oxbridge (oxford and cambridge) last week during an open week. and i came to know that there at least 2 persons will be responsible for you, your results. one of em will be your director and the other one will be tutor, both of them will meet you weekly and discuss the probelms you have. the tutor will be at least spending 2 hours a week with you and i think thats far too sufficent for a good student.
coz in uni its all about self study(or at least i think so)

and here i suppose that north american unis might also be having a similar kind of teaching envoirment. if its not the case then how come they were able to produce a huge number of scientists over the period of years??????????

i think you might be able to answer this question (perhaps).

in the end i should say dat it was a good try of looking worlds leading unis from a paki students` eye.(i think there is no need to say any thing about them)

Didn`t the author found place in UnPlugged`s ``Science History and Law``.
This article doesn`t produces any whirlpool to get educated or not...Ver Confusing

nice...
there are something i do tell my coulegues and fellows.
name does not matter if the person does not know the thing.
though the creating a name is a difficut thing but generaly universities dont be the same as they were...but they are still renowned because they have made name...and they are just cashing their name..
this is the case in pakistan with almost all th major good names.(i dont name them)

I`m confused. Is this article generally dissing American educational institutions or comparing them with Pakistani institutions or both?

Ok, let`s go through this piece by piece:

//Although the faculty at these institutions may be involved in break through research but this fact does not guarantee that they may be able to engage students in the subject matter through their teaching skills.//

You are basing this on...? Personal experience? Research? I think you’ve either had a very bad personal experience or your research was poor, because it is a FACT and a first-hand experience that most American universities who have the standing to be considered a ``brand name`` in the first place have teachers/professors who are EXCELLENT in not only teaching but also effectively imparting their knowledge and making students think critically. Universities might be ``brand names`` but they have a reason for that - their students learn SO much over the years that they become very knowledgeable about their subject matter and then carry the name of the university forward.

//The faculty maybe more knowledgeable but they lack good teaching skills. //

Again, what are you basing this judgment on? How many teachers do you know who lack good teaching skills and are teaching in North American universities? You are generalizing and it is painful to see this kind of attitude not backed by facts.

//Plus the financial expense pushes them early into the North American cycle of paying interest for a considerable duration of their life. //

A lot of American universities give loans, financial aid, tuition and fee waivers and assistantships, which is more than I can say for ANY Pakistani university, where students might be desperate for financial help and NONE is offered. I think it`s a wonderful system in the American way of life where students are helped in this way. So they have to pay back and for this, they usually end up working for America. This might be ``wrong`` to some, but I say it`s VERY clever and an excellent way of utilizing students that have been trained in the american educational system. I know we all complain about student loans etc but hey, if we get quality education in return, i think it`s worth it.

//Most of the students going from Pakistan to these universities hope to get a job simply because they attended a foreign institution. This is not true anymore. The North American economy is very cyclical and if one gets caught in a downturn, its highly unlikely that one will be able to recover even the original expenditure on education. //

Jobs are hard to find anywhere, be it Pakistan or America, Europe, Middle East etc..it`s just the cyclical nature of the economy all over the world, which sees its ups and downs. Sure, there is no guarantee that you can find a job after you graduate from an American university, but chances are that if you were capable enough to get into one to begin with, you will be able to utilize your education in the job market eventually. And why blame universities for the job market? That`s the government`s job, to ensure the economy remains stable.

//Educated Pakistanis abroad and at home generally feel that, still those students are better off in North American universities than studying in Pakistani institutions.//

Ok, here`s the deal: You give me GOOD reasons why Pakistani institutions are better and I will believe your generalized statements.

There are problems in the American educational system, sure...the standardized tests have been criticized, the system of admissions has been grilled as well, but your article does not give solid reasons for believing your argument. I think instead of giving the stereotypical point of view you should`ve delved more deeply into WHY you have this opinion and given strong arguments to support it.

A stereotypical generalized job badly done.

Are your views based on your personal experiences in your own University?

``..Further, when they apply to these same universities, they are admitted although they may not have the skills to go through an intensive four-year long curriculum.`` - Really, this is an extremely generalized statement. Would you please elaborate further, or support it with some examples.

I understand that many people wrongly believe that the North American educational system is always a High-Quality deal, is it not always so, but your article reads in a very biased manner which is rather frustrating. It might have been better if the generalization had been toned down considerably.

-Syd