>>24316
>that they put such a focus on teaching
of my masters courses (1%=1ECTS):
16% were fundamental exams where you had to memorize a book, not nice
44% was varying degrees of OK, a lot of it pretty mid
20% was IT with AI focus, interesting but far from perfect
20% was outstanding, 3x courses by the woman that got a prize here + 2x courses by someone else
So yeah, not all was great but I was grateful for the good courses.
>Some just care about research and have super overworked researchers giving the lectures thinking it's some kind of nuisance.
I think that is very faculty dependent, some just have very little of substance to offer. Everything economics and humanities, which makes up a lot of courses on the list, just isn't very good at producing actually interesting novel stuff. This is especially obvious when compared to chemistry or whatever.
I partook in a lot of scientific experiments for money over the years and the gap between psychology, which tested a lot of subconscious stuff and did a lot of eye tracking, and economics, which mostly tried to find behavioral patterns in decision making in some stupid money related experiments at a PC, already seems big to me. Now think of some material chemist that developed a new material with certain interesting properties and publishes about it.
It also requires close to infinite resources, like ETH and other really rich universities have, to get people that do relevant research to come work for you. When you don't have such you have to think of other ways to make your university attractive.