I don't like education being statistics based either. I think it can cripple good education, since it's a false objective, which divorces the purpose of schooling from the reality of it.
Statistics puts a lot of pressure on examiners: If one year a class gets lower scores than the previous, the question is asked why? Less able students? or teachers giving bad lessons this year? Unfortunately, the latter is the preferred reason, and students could make a big fuss about that if the low class average appears to affect what degree they graduate with.
So examiners are encouraged to "scale up" marks so they are similar to previous years; meanwhile the syllabus is remade with lesser depth every few years to offset the need to scale up. It doesn't help that so many less able students are allowed into university which reduces the class average grades. It is supposed to be for the gifted elite, not for 50% of all school leavers. Another trick is to make every exam so similar to the previous years exam that it is essentially giving away answers.
My point being that this is a cascade effect from similar policies made in colleges and high school to improve statistics.
This happened while I was at university. I could see it happening. And it was explained to me on the quiet by one of the senior staff when I asked too many questions about it.
When I was at university, not so long ago, I didn't feel that it was remotely dumbed down, the standards were high for getting a first, concepts were introduced which were intellectually challenging, it was self evident that they were so and they were explored in depth through project work and examinations. However that was my experience, I don't know what its like across the board but I find this is blanket typecasting of a sort and it would probably be more accurate to say that there is a non uniform dumbing down of degrees which means some are going this route, some are not.
The gifted elite comment, it carries a lot of negative connotations. I'd say a more educated populace overall is a great thing, why? Because it should foster a more critical culture. In Argentinia education is underfunded as politicians seek to develop gullible and misinformed peons. Less education=more likely to follow orders and not think independently, which is great for the elites as they can send the peasants off to fight wars on the basis of flimsy ideology, or accept their lot in life as cattle for the slave drivers.
So while less able students might not contribute anything special to the fields they studied they will have been given the chance to acquire important skills. In any case it doesn't matter as what you'll have is just a greater pool of mediocrity from which the more able will stand out. The significant thing though is that overall you will have a more intelligent and better informed populace. I'd rather not go back to the middle ages thank you very much.
A few criticisms I do have about education are thusly; the over emphasis on industry relating to university degrees, intellectual enlightenment is as important as technical knowledge, ergo the former shouldn't be dismissed so readily, history/philosophy/literature are important subject areas that give us significant insights into humanity. What is it to have at ones mastery incredible technologies when one doesn't have the wherewithal to use them wisely. Secondly, the exam results based economy, while exams are an easy way of encouraging people to cram knowledge into their heads and motivate them, a greater emphasis on research and project work would be welcome, as its in these field that one truly develops their bullshit detectors and the ability to skeptically inquire about subject areas. Thats actually a major problem with schools, I remember the authoritarian structures and how you were essentially trained up to be a good future employee who never questioned anything.
