483

This might also apply to conferences. (mander.xyz)

submitted 1 month ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

46 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I wonder why universities classrooms are designed more like movie theatres?

[-] loaExMachina@sh.itjust.works 28 points 1 month ago

Because more people?

[-] taiyang@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

Yes, this is the simple and correct answer. Yikes everyone else, you try seating 300 people in a research 1 university classroom.

[-] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 9 points 1 month ago

You wouldn't be able to see otherwise

[-] shneancy@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

i thiiink it's to help everyone see & hear better, like in ancient Greek theatres

this is all guesswork but, i'm guessing that since university education historically (and in a lot of places to this day) is more a thing of the rich they actually put some thought into the design of the lecture halls. And for the education of the poors that's simply made to condition them to work in factories they just put some tables and chairs in a room and called it a day - and since then the design stuck

[-] taiyang@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

Your guesswork is doing a bit too much there. Rich schools also have flat classrooms for smaller groups, e.g 30ish.

The reasons for stadium seating is for size, and that's true for most schools including community colleges (and even vocational schools). Usually it's used for classes everyone has to take, like a pre-req. High schools aren't standardized in the same way, so you generally wouldn't have a class of 80. High schoolers need more one on one anyway, and teachers require less specialized knowledge, so the numbers just work better that way.

[-] shneancy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

yea true, though (and again i'm just speculating and talking out of my ass, do tell me if you find that annoying i can do research i just don't feel like it atm) wouldn't first schools have been made just for the working class kids? The rich kids were getting home schooled by best professors and then sent off to universities. The working class kids would be sent to the newly established general schools where they could learn and find new opportunities (and get conditioned to work in factories). I don't think you'd see many rich kids in schools with "the poors". And once schools became the norm, and rich kids schools began popping up then the schematic of what a pre-university school looked like was already established

[-] taiyang@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

It's been a while since I learned the history, but if I remecmber right the first schools in the US were religious in nature. But public schooling was generally a huge equalizer, and made the most advances along with workers rights movements, etc.

That said, there's plenty to be upset about class-wise, just not the class size thing. It's true that rich families have always done what they could do to get their kids ahead, generally with private school and tutoring. They have a much higher odds of getting into the better colleges, and the more elite schools tend to lead to higher pay after graduation. They're also doing everything they can to gut public education, which is the whole point of the push for vouchers (which was especially big during the Trump administration).

There's a thousand more reasons to be pissed off at the rich regarding education, but if I wanted to get into every single one I'd still be in academia (My PhD in Ed was all about that). Actually, now that I think of it, take a look at Learning to Labour by Willis, as I think it reflects your train of thought.