Were university degrees harder 40 years ago?

University degrees were tougher 40 years ago, but not for the reasons you think

The question is posed by someone seeking opinions from "a mechanical engineer or anyone who has tied a Vespa engine to a mop." The result is one of the most repeated discussions among degree holders: was studying harder four decades ago, or is this just nostalgia from those who no longer take exams? The dominant response in the exchange is nuanced and, partly, uncomfortable: according to several accounts, syllabi were more comprehensive, places were scarcer, and first-year dropout rates were brutal. But that doesn't miccionan graduates were better prepared.

Fewer spots, more students, and no YouTube

An industrial engineer summarizes it bluntly: there were many students and fewer spots in second and third year. The bottleneck wasn't the exam, it was the number. If you had a bad teacher—and according to this account, almost all were—you were stuck, because video channels where today one learns what the lecturer doesn't explain didn't exist. Summer tutoring centers were the only lifeline, and they weren't affordable for everyone.

The pressure translated into figures that would sound exaggerated today. According to one story, more than 300 people sat for a final Calculus exam. Six passed. The highest grade was a 6.3, and whoever got it risked being dropped from the program. Another account describes passing with a 5.1 after repeating the subject, using summer tutoring during the course, and describes that pass as the turning point of their academic life. The feeling of happiness that day, they say, has only been matched at their wedding and when their daughters were born.

Why are they said to be more comprehensive yet easier to pass?

Here is the twist that breaks easy nostalgia. A professor who says he has taught mechanical engineers for three decades—when the degree didn't even exist as such—claims that his current exercises and exams are quite harder and more comprehensive than those from 30 years ago, and yet, they are easier to pass. His conclusion: students graduate better prepared. The apparent contradiction is explained by method: before, assessment used less material and acted as a stricter filter; now, assessment covers more material with less screening.

The diagnosis regarding degree devaluation also appears. Some argue that the arrival of bachelor's and master's degrees has contributed to devaluing higher education, pointing to the pogre increase in private universities as an added factor. The criticism isn't just about level; it's about market dynamics. More degrees, more competition, lower relative value.

The Bologna Process and the system's fine print

A History graduate who finished just before the Bologna Process describes it with an image: she dreams of a huge palace, with a list of grades she can't find, climbing stairs. The dream is not accidental. The transition to the degree system changed the structure, and those who lived it from within describe a before and after in how knowledge was organized. Another participant mentions having "swallowed" the transition to the digital domain, with the Z-transform being a stumbling block.

There is division over the real utility of what was learned. An engineer acknowledges that when he goes to an industry and has to solve an operational, mechanical, or IT problem, he sees things others don't, and that he has applied those concepts in programs. Another poses the uncomfortable question: has anyone solved integrals after finishing their degree? Differential equations with Laplace transforms? Fourier series? The silence that trinc is, in itself, an answer.

The job market waiting on the other side

An engineering student nearing graduation says it without euphemisms: he thinks every day about leaving the country. His thesis is that there are still 17- and 18-year-olds convinced that becoming an engineer means making money in Spain, and that millions live like in the movie Good bye Lenin, in a madhouse of a country. The question about whether telecommunications engineers still earn big salaries or if they are fleeing abroad remains floating, without a closed answer.

The disillusionment is not only economic. Someone who worked in the sector says they ended up fed up and that the tax authority (Hacienda) took everything they earned. The hardest degree guarantees nothing on the other side of the title.

Four degrees and no superiority complex

Against the narrative of effort as merit, ironic distance appears. Someone with four degrees says they don't feel superior. Another recalls that in the 2010-2013 period, discussion spaces about economy and real estate were full of people with serious technical training, and that most disappeared: several became teachers after losing their jobs and never returned. The talent left, the forum stayed.

There are also those who reduce the whole issue to a matter of era and specific teachers. If your instructors looked like bearded ETA members or priests with glasses, it doesn't matter if you only did basic schooling: with that elementary education, they say, you outshine 80% of the people you meet on the street. The provocation has its point: the level isn't fixed by the degree, it's fixed by who teaches it.

The complete calculation of how much each factor weighs—spots, faculty, syllabus, market—is not settled. And it remains open, like the grade list in the palace.