Is it possible that the curriculum is maybe too high level for the students enrolled in it, but they are being made to enrolled in it without the path for an lower level course first?
I don't really have a great understanding of university course structure for reference.
Edit: Read some more comments bellow. Got my fill of theorizing about why students might be trying to take the easy way or why teachers might be struggling to educate effectively. Feel free to ignore me lol.
Now I love boiling down the pitfalls of modern western society into large statements like "capitalism bad" and "communism good" as much as anyone, but having dealt with a bunch of people dismiss good change as "that's communism" has made me rethink how I talk about topics online and in person.
Now the accelerationist are gonna be mad about this for sure, but maybe you should start small, and discuss topics at a more local level. Then again the internet is world wide and everyone wants to talk about grand scale things.
Basically, I've stopped telling people outside of my direct circle that leftism cool, and instead talk about socialised medicine programs, pushing for support of worker owned productions and business, getting involved with coop housing. Lot easier when you don't have to bump up against the red scare.
Idk maybe it's cause I don't live in as much of a two party system as the US, but essentially still a two party system.
I think there's value in strategic voting. I don't know what the equivalent would be in the US but strategic voting for the lesser of two evils at a national level and then voting more true to your convictions at a municipal and provincial level is still valid.
Again my opinions probably don't work in the US electoral system, but voter apathy is a big part of how rights get eroded where I'm from. A party or political figure stays in power because of apathy and then they just keep getting away with shit. At least if you cast a vote it can be seen as you participating in the democracy.
I will say there is something to the act of not voting as being a part of democracy, but truly I think along with abstaining any functioning democracy needs a "none" option.
I don't think we'll see this any time soon, because corpos probably won't listen to any creative that presents this, but I want something where the LLM runs locally and is just used to interpret what you are asking for but the dialogue responses are all still written by a writer. Then you can make the user interaction feel more intuitive, but the design of the story and mechanics can just respond to the implied tone, questions, prompts, keywords from the user.
Then you could have a dialogue tree that responds with a nice well constructed narrative, but a user who asked something casually vs accusatory might end up with slightly different information.
In life it's been mostly pure luck, but one of the few things I really recommend is to keep in the loop about rebates, programs and services offered by my federal and provincial government. Stuff like rebates on first time home buying, electric bikes, and energy efficient equipment is nice cause I bet I saved at least 3000$ total.
In recent time tho the biggest one has been getting a bicycle. I got an e-bike but even a regular bike helped me stop paying through the nose for gas when I was just burning it mostly sitting in traffic.
I feel like most of the things such as dependency hell and at least some amount of data models and routing can be resolved by using custom elements tho. I can agree to a certain point that HTMX could lead to a simple markup based approach, but it's still a matter of learning another library and all that junk. In a perfect world I feel like there should just be an equivalent to maybe the `` element that could on becoming visible makes an Http call to lazy load and plop in some inner HTML. I guess you'd still be missing the whole events driven by attributes part tho.
I don't know if I think this whole HTMX stuff is silly cause I'm jaded, or don't see a use case for it personally. So take my comment with a huge grain of salt.
I wish you the best of luck with your strategic voting, hopefully the lesser of two evils has some amount of representation for you.
I don't really understand the US' electoral system, but you guys seem really boned by the whole two party system. Like no wonder everyone is so grumpy and unsatisfied all the time when you guys seem to just have two big parties that span such wide gamuts of views and policies.
I wonder if they are banking on, to put it into meme terms, "Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point".
And obviously I mean that in terms of a "great point" for the opposition.
I really don't know anything about the parliamentary system of this country, hell I barely know enough about my own country, but this seems like at the best an interesting play and at the worst a huge miscalculation that will bite them in the arse.
Try to indulge me, as I try to humanize the people you are talking about in a way that might resonate with you.
Imagine you work 40hrs a week, getting paid minimum wage or next to minimum wage, the housing market continues to worsen around you as rent continues to increase but wages don't. If you have a place already and are just barely scraping by living paycheck to paycheck, which a lot of people are these days. One small bad financial day from an emergency or unexpected cost and you're screwed. You miss your rent payment and you get evicted. Now, if you don't have a safety net of people, which we can't guarantee everyone does have living family or friends that will take you in for a month while you get back on your feet, you become homeless. You get fired from work because you've taken too many unpaid days off to try and get your life sorted so you don't have to sleep on the streets. Now you can't get another job because most places won't hire you without an address, and collecting unemployment becomes difficult because if you have no address and no direct deposit you can't get it mailed to you to claim.
As for the drugs that you say they have chosen to ruin their lives with, a pack of cigarettes, a small bag of weed, some opiates, or alcohol costs a whole lot less than rent for a month or even a motel room for the night.
The financial and housing situation for a lot of people out there in the world is really fragile, and if you add on other issues that I didn't list such as mental health issues, lack of education or job experience with any education you have, or existing addiction, it can really add up and make it so your going from sleeping in a small bachelor's apartment one night to sleeping on a park bench the next.
I don't fully ascribe to the concept of communism myself (it's a good label for most folks but I'm too picky about nitty gritty stuff so say I like it when I would want to adjust a few things about it), but I definitely think social housing is how you fix homelessness. Cities and states / provinces waste more money dealing with homelessness the way they do now then just building them socialized housing.
You say "Rent Control" doesn't work, but having seen locations with rent control, and living in a place without it I fundamentally disagree with that statement.
In any economic model, housing is a basic need for humans. While rent control isn't a solution, I don't think it's ever intended to be one. It is a stop gap, or a step implemented in a larger plan. It's basically regulations for combating price fixing.
If you live in a place fraught with renoviction, the act of using a renovation as an excuse to evict people and charge more for the same thing, then the person who has been forced back into the market does not have to become homeless.
To another point, I don't think rent control would prevent development of new housing either, as landlords aren't the only folks who buy properties, even though it's almost financially impossible to buy a house in certain inflated markets these days no matter who you are.
No, you're right. I'm saying it's reactionary to write only "Capitalism is bad", and nothing else. Mostly because in terms of a discussion it makes it hard to keep talking about why capitalism is bad with such a broad statement. This is just the opinion of one dude on the internet who thinks of comments in a very specific way, and I get that others agree probably fine with broad comments of that style.
I really don't see how you got that assumption at the end. It more seems like the commenter above is saying that if you would benefit from living in a rural area because there is less people and less possibilities to encounter nuisances, and that it would also be better for those people who are nuisances to also live in rural locations cause they would bother less people.
I think its also worth mentioning that with the way housing costs, and availability for utilities is these days, not a lot of people have as much freedom to live in a space they find 100% perfect. Like i love living in urban areas, but some cities design streets so poorly that people are freely able to speed loud cars down quiet residential roads. So, we either gotta get involved in our community we find ourselves in to make the changes we want, hope someone else does it, put up with it, or pack our bags and go somewhere else.