Jump to content

Talk:Higher education in Portugal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

?

[edit]

Eu não tenho culpa nenhuma que tu desconheças na totalidade a realidade do ensino superior português de 1975 até finais da década de 1990. Se hoje há abandono escolar e iliteracia, naquele tempo era bem pior, havia proporcionalmente muito mais alunos e professores no estrato inferior do nível de competência mínima do que os que há hoje, e o recém-nascido ensino superior alternativo de ciclo curto feito para as massas e para as estatísticas, o novo ensino politécnico, estava mais distante do seu congénere universitário do que alguma vês esteve. Era racional, e todos os estudos externos o indicavam, que um ensino técnico especializado intermédio e de qualidade, na senda do que já tinha existido, era o mais proveitoso para a sociedade portuguesa de então, contudo optou-se por querer fazer à força fornadas de pseudo doutores e pseudo engenheiros para mostrar ao mundo e cumprir a democratização de Abril em todas as suas facetas. Perderam todos, incluindo os que acreditavam na possibilidade de desenvolvimento do país, e atrasámo-nos em devaneios ilusórios por mais 25 anos. Não tenho culpa que esse período seja uma grande incógnita para ti, por usares fraldas nessa altura ou por não conheceres ninguém que tenha vivido a realidade do ensino superior naquela época. Mas esse tempo existiu e viu formarem-se milhares de pessoas que ainda hoje são activas, e muito do que de mau lá se passou continua a passar-se hoje, ainda que numa escala diferente. É natural que tenham sido feitas experiências no ensino pós-25 de Abril, mas isto arrastou-se no tempo e não fosse a Europa definir e forçar um rumo com Bolonha e outras metas, ainda hoje andávamos para saber qual seria a política educativa para daqui a mais 25 anos. Não é nenhuma invenção dizer-se que havia engenheiros técnicos (saídos dos politécnicos com 3 anos de curso) e engenheiros (saídos das universidades com 5 anos de curso), que tinham credenciais diferentes uns dos outros e que isso se repercutia no tipo e complexidade de projectos que estavam habilitados a fazer e assinar como seus. Nem é imaginação dizer que uns eram admitidos na Ordem e outros não eram (como aliás ainda acontece hoje em muitos casos). Com os professores passava-se algo de muito semelhante, os licenciados em historia, química, português ou matemática nas universidades davam aulas do 7º ano até ao 12º, os que tinham determinados cursos de 3 anos do politécnico, não davam para além do 6º ou do 9º. Como é óbvio, um indivíduo que estudava 5 anos para ser por exemplo Eng. Electrotécnico por uma universidade, não só tinha que obter melhores notas para ser admitido nesse curso, como tinha que depois estudar durante mais anos, ou seja fazer muito mais cadeiras e tudo isto geralmente num ambiente de maior exigência e competição do que os que entravam para o politécnico (muitos deles entravam com notas negativas, e os restantes com notas claramente inferiores aos das universidades, como ainda se vê também hoje em muitos lados) e cursavam menos 2 anos do que os das universidades. No fim uns eram engenheiros, os outros engenheiros técnicos. Os primeiros faziam e assinavam projectos completos e de grande responsabilidade como instalações eléctricas em edifícios fabris, centrais hidroeléctricas, ou em prédios de 15 andares e assumiriam as culpas ou encontrariam soluções caso alguma coisa corresse mal, os engenheiros técnicos iam á obra supervisionar o andamento do projecto no campo e ajudavam os primeiros, quanto muito, a fazer os desenhos da planta no atelier. Os primeiros pertenciam à Ordem dos Engenheiros, os segundos não. O que é que queres que eu te diga? Que é tudo uma grande alucinação só para te fazer a vontade porque foste aluno politécnico? A tendência hoje é para haver mais igualdade, de um modo geral, porque também o crivo de selecção é cada vez mais refinado, a bandalheira está-se a esbater, e em cada vez mais instituições de ensino os cursos sucessivamente alterados e reformados também estão cada vez mais idênticos em processo de selecção, currículo e duração. Isto foi uma transformação de muitos anos, pelo meio muita coisa mudou gradualmente, mas muita está ainda por mudar e já estamos mais de 20 anos atrasados. Porque é que julgas que em mais de uma dúzia de escolas de ensino politécnico com vários cursos de engenharia em cada uma deles, mesmo hoje em 2006, só algumas engenharias politécnicas de Lisboa e Porto (e nem são todas) foram reconhecidas recentemente pela ordem? Diplomas iguais só podem ser acreditados com currículos lectivos e critérios de exigência iguais e isso não se arranja por simples decreto, demora tempo e carece de vontade de mudar. Um dos problemas é que certas escolas têm medo de mudar porque senão de repente ficam sem o tipo de alunos que as punha a funcionar, e acabam por ficar desertas e também sem dinheiro, e os seus professores acomodados precisam de comer bem e pagar a piscina nova. Num país relativamente pobre e atrasado no contexto Europeu como é Portugal, tudo parece mais rápido quando se tenta nivelar as coisas por baixo, baixando a fasquia a obra fica pronta mais depressa, o problema é que se desmorona facilmente e isso é o que aconteceu em Portugal durante demasiado tempo. O que está escrito no artigo é muito extenso e reflecte esse processo de mudanças longuíssimo e pesado, feito de avanços e recuos no ensino, que na minha opinião é (juntamente com a cultura enraizada do cómodo funcionalismo público, por oposição ao empreendedorismo e à cultura do conhecimento e da exigência) um dos principais motivos de Portugal estar ainda e sempre na cauda da Europa em praticamente todos os indicadores que traduzem o nível potencial de desenvolvimento e bem-estar futuro de um país. As coisas poderão compor-se definitivamente para ganho de todos nós, mas só quando certos sectores torpes e ignorantes deixarem que isso aconteça. Eu sei que tu és uma pessoa esclarecida e informada, e mesmo que sejas demasiado novo para ter presenciando as coisas com os teus próprios olhos, não precisas fingir que não sabes nada sobre esta realidade da história do ensino em Portugal. .lIl. 15:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article has factual accuracy problems, some I've spotted them immediately. It has several POV issues, unfortunatly there is no proper tagging to address to proper sentences. But there are several and you know which are and I've addressed my concerns on your talk page. --Pedro 13:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proper references for every single sentence you criticized as inaccurate and biased, are being added. More to come. Everyone can help. On the other hand, I can't find any credible reference about master's degree programs offered in the engineering polytechnic institutions. As far as I know, until now (December 2006), any engineering polytechnic institution is offering such programs. If you can provide that references, it will be very appreciated. Otherwise the sentences claiming the current availability of master's degrees in polytechnics should be reworded until its effective practice by all schools in the subsector..lIl. 14:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section 4.2.2 Today's situation

[edit]

I suggest that the list of accredited courses be split off into the article on the Ordem dos Engenheiros as it relates more to that organisation than higher education in Portugal generally. Madmedea 21:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support your suggestion and have already moved the list of accredited courses into the article Ordem dos Engenheiros..lIl. 23:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 6 Employability

[edit]

I don't see the value of repeating the list of universities seen as 'desirable' by employers in a single piece of research. It overwhelms the section on employability and only presents one point of view. The research is referenced fully in the article so could be followed up by anyone who is interested - but it doesn't seem right for a Wikipedia article. Madmedea 21:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. (But note that the list is not of the "desirable" or "not desirable" institutions, but only that institutions whose former students are more requested by a few specific employment agencies that work for targeted employers and job seekers. Many former students from diverse institutions, including institutions which do not appear in either or both of these lists, are not recruited through these employment agencies or using that methods.).lIl. 23:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the reason to remove it! I'm going to take it out of the article. Thanks for your comments. I never want to just barge into an article I've come across and start deleting things! Madmedea 10:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo mctes.gif

[edit]

Image:Logo mctes.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are accuracy problems in this section. Please refer to INE statistics for 2007; graduate unemployment is less that half the figure you stated. Bellona61 (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Opinion article

[edit]

This article is merely a personal opinion, far from being exact, and written in order to boost some institutions:

  • Public vs Private
  • University vs Polytechnic
  • University of Coimbra

And even there are sentences like: Licenciatura (Academic License) - title: Licenciado (popular: Doutor or Engenheiro for a License in engineering) - abbreviation used in front of holder's name: Lic. (popular: Dr. or Eng. for Engineer, used extensively (formal and colloquially) in accordance with the historical underdeveloped world's tradition followed in a number of countries ranging from Latin America to Africa)

amonsgt several other, the article is all like this, in such a way, that I avoid reading most of it, not to put tags in all of the article sentences.

Please stop removing tags without the situation being address, the article should glow like a crystal, not like coal with controversial personal views over the subject.-Pedro (talk) 18:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't blame the integrity of the entire article due to a couple of unnoticed unsourced sentences. The information about the best-ranked public universities, including those of Porto or Coimbra, is widely sourced. I understand why you didn't put tags, that's because almost all sentences are sourced with links to the Ministry of Higher Education, the OCDE, universities, professor's unions, educational peer-reviewd magazines, professional organizations, an so on. You hate Coimbra's and Porto's public universities, but that's not my fault. Coimbra guy (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't hate anything, much less universities. I putted one single tag, and your source was again your personal opinion: bacharelato is not bacharelor degree, because... let me see... you can not get a master degree (in Portugal, I add) and the similar name is just a coincide (I add, following your thoughts, I suppose). here's the kind of sources, and kind of text you add. I didn't tag it all, because of lack of patience to debate over this, I read just a sentence and i get nuts because of the strong bias. This is not your blog, this is an article. There are private universities much better than public ones, there are polytechnics better than some universities, and university of Coimbra can't even claim to be a TOP 3 university, much less the top 1 that you are trying here. -Pedro (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that the article's facts, with all those external references, imply that it is merely a personal opinion.

  • Public vs Private: Any guy can read the articles and the references about the Universidade Independente, Universidade Moderna and the Universidade Internacional. They were widely praised institutions, with thousands of enrolled students, and huge advertising campaigns. Before the 2007 state-managed investigation, the scandals and affairs, they were among the major private universities of Portugal, and they were among the most popular and well known in the country. There are dozens of less reputed private universities and private institutes in the coutry with dubious academic integrity and still in operation. You live in Portugal, and you watch the news, so you know that's absolutely true, even if you don't check the references.
  • University vs Polytechnic : almost all state-run polytechincs (and private universities) have lowest admission and teaching criteria than the average public university. A majority of the polytechnics' engineering courses (and also private universities') are not accredited by the Ordem dos Engenheiros, Portugal's highest authority for the accreditation of professional engineers. As of 2008, only 2 out of 15 public polytechnical institutes, have accredited courses in the field of engineering.[1]
  • University of Coimbra: The university rankings placing UC and UP in the top, which were not created by myself, are well sourced. Check them out.
  • The "used extensively (formal and colloquially) in accordance with the historical underdeveloped world's tradition followed in a number of countries ranging from Latin America to Africa", although stating an opinion with many sympathizers in Portugal (we can read or watch it in the media) it is not necessary in this article.
  • The bacharelato awarded by the polytechnics in Portugal was not a bachelor's degree, because it was an undergraduate degree with similarities with the associate's degree.

Cheers. Coimbra guy (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Porto University is the largest, so of course it is a TOP 3 university in the country, because it has more resources, so internationally or nationally it tops in these rankings, but we are talking about Coimbra University, which is a pretty different case. But one that reads the article starts thinking that Coimbra university is the best in the country. In the 19th century it was. You are using foreign "studies", because they do not know Portuguese reality and changes. And we all know how these rankings are made. Just because that times study said that, does not mean it is true, or that the times or something is an authority. The fact, that there are many polytechnic that are not considered the best, there are also universities in the same situation, that are no better. At any case, the polytechnic subsector has higher employability than the university subsectior, that of course, doesn't show up in the article, because you are constantly finding ways to reach your goals.
  • so because you think, and you found similarities the bacharelato is not a bachelor degree. ok. but what you think doesn't matter here. Where are your sources for that? Please read: WP:NOR
  • There are many parts of the article where you state what YOU THINK. This is the problem, the article is so full of it, that would be a lot work to correct it, and i'm not going for it.--Pedro (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Higher education in Portugal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Higher education in Portugal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Higher_education_in_Portugal&oldid=1207515901"