Let's re-evaluate Arts

The_Minister

I have been thinking, Ladies and Gentlemen, and I have come to a conclusion. This is in part inspired by the "Arts as a Burden" thread. As we all know Arts and Humanities is often refered to as a waste of money, and in some ways it is. There is one obvious and rational solution. Some Arts subjects must be either downgraded or terminated and their funds transferred to more useful and important subjects.

---

Now, I am not an unreasonable man and I would prefer the downgrading option, because knowledge of any nature is a wonderful thing and there is little sadder then knowledge allowed to die, so I will be meriful. Caps should be set on the number of students allowed to participate in the "inferior" subjects, maybe 20 a year for the worst, -thus, does knowledge survive but not consume excessive and unwarrented resources.

---

How do we decide what goes and what stays? What subjects are intrinsically worthy? By examining each subject and judging its merit.
Firstly the languages:
I believe that any living language that is widely spoken is worth learning. This justifies:
-Arabic
-French
-German
-Italian
-Welsh (Welsh is a borderline in this case, I leave it due to the proximity of Wales)

The other UCD taught languages:-Irish-Our national language and no matter how much I hate it, it still merits study for this alone
-Latin-Can be used as a basis for understanding other European language. It is probably the only language that is known by at least one person in every country and deserves recognition for that.
-Greek-This could be downgraded as its only real use is Biblical interpretation
-Hebrew-This could also be downgraded as the language is only alive in Isreal which Ireland does not have many contacts with, and again for biblical interpretation.

Secondly, the "Concrete" subjects which there are no questions that they will be downgraded.
-Economics-A living science, which is needed and used in daily interpretations of the world. Probably the strongest subject.
-Geography-A still-growing sector, with much public interest which deals with real and relevent occurences such as natural disasters.
-History-You may be surprised that I have added this. C.W. Mills can explain better then I ever could "Yet people do not usually define the troubles they endure in terms of historical change and institutional contradiction. The well-being they enjoy, they do not usually impute to the big ups and downs of the societies in which they live. Seldom aware of the intricate connection between the patterns of their own lives and the course of world history, ordinary people do not usually know what this connection means for the kinds of people they are becoming and for the kinds of history-making in which they might take part."Basically History tells us how we got where we are and that is important.
-Mathematics-A subject that consumes few resources and impacts on many of the sciences in positive ways.
-Politics-This is relevent to all citizens, to an extent that it needs no defending.
-Psycology-A constantly changing subject, with daily relevence and importance. Discoveries often lead to a deeper understanding of human cerebral-function.
-Sociology-The study of society, it is an important and living area.
-Statistics-A good practical subject that is utilised daily.

Thirdly, the social exceptions. Thes three are given extra lee-way because they effect how a society is ultimatly judged-English- Even if all writers are declared post-humously homosexual by this subject it is still worthy as the literature produced by a society often shows it merit.
-History of Art-largely useless, but art, like music and literature has a societal importance that transcends function.
-Music- See the above two.

Now for the more "dodgy" or not as important subjects:
-Archaology-Its an important subject but only very limited numbers are needed.
-Celtic Civilisation-See History but it is definately weaker than history. Cap it.
-Greek and Roman Civilisation-An interesting subject which stands to teach us much by showing us what was known before modern technology-but of little practical value. Cap it
-Information Studies-Has sufficient practical value to merit its saving.
-Linguistics-this is saved because it is essentially the study of communication between different people's and can teach us much about what comes naturally and what is learnt.
-Math physics-Useful enough to be given a pass.


and finally we come to the trickiest subject to judge - Philosophy. As a subject over the ages it has spawned many other now cherished fields of study such as Economics, Politics, Sociology and even Mathematics. For this it deserves respect. But, its children have outgrown it and no longer nurse on't. Has it got any other fields in the metaphorical womb? No. It has given all it can to society. All that is left now is random thoughts, worded to sound profound, telling us nothing. It has become a hollow science, all meaning long since stripped from it. It is one of the oldest disciplines, but it has been exhausted. It is with great regret that I must Cap it.


My basic idea ladies and gentlemen is this. What Arts subject most deserves to be cut-back? I will add a poll so that you can answer.

Dave!

where's Atari Jaguar?

Eoin Macollamh

Ah the arrogance of youth...

ferdi

i've stayed away from this subject and i dont think i'm the right spokesman for the arts as i'm not that into my course but...

the arts and humananities are not a wast of time, they are just that - the humanities ->
they are what we do, they are what and how we think, they are what is inside all of us (not literally), they are what we have been and what we will be, they are who we are in every way that matters. there should be not cut backs in the faculty of arts.

are we arrogant enough to think we dont need the arts and humanities? can we stand as a civilisation with no knowlege of the achievements and ideas that have gone before?

without the arts, what use is there in business, commerce, law, medicine?

hullaballoo

Eoin Macollamh wrote:

Ah the arrogance of youth...

I'll thank you not to refer to people in this forum as "arrogant". It could be seen as personal abuse, but more to the point, it's flaming. Firespinner, you're not arrogant.

The_Minister

Not all knowledge is equal and arts is often looked down on as "flighty". If you had to choose which would you?

EDIT: Thanks Hullabaloo. I think this is an important question, perticularly for those who immediately dismiss it.

EDIT EDIT: SS. The question is not if it deserves to be cut-back but which deserves to be cut back the most? If you had no choice which would you choose?

singingstranger

I'd love an Atari Jaguar option, Hulla...

I dunno if Music merits a reduction, tbh. Reasons are a little beyond my level of perkiness right now though.

ferdi

if it was up to me i'd cut out some of the businessy type courses and put the money into arts.

The_Minister

ferdi wrote:

if it was up to me i'd cut out some of the businessy type courses and put the money into arts.

tbh That is merely reactionary Arts xenophobia. Business courses are usefull and practical.

singingstranger

ferdi wrote:

if it was up to me i'd cut out some of the businessy type courses and put the money into arts.

If you mean the Quinn stuff, that building was almost entirely funded by outside donations so if that money hadn't been spent on putting that building and its courses in place, the money would still be sitting in the arse pocket of Lochlann Quinn (AIB/GlenDimplex) et al.

ferdi

Firespinner wrote:

tbh That is merely reactionary Arts xenophobia. Business courses are usefull and practical.

agreed, but waht use is wealth and an economy without the arts?

Chinafoot

ferdi wrote:

the arts and humananities are not a wast of time, they are just that - the humanities ->
they are what we do, they are what and how we think, they are what is inside all of us (not literally), they are what we have been and what we will be, they are who we are in every way that matters. there should be not cut backs in the faculty of arts.

are we arrogant enough to think we dont need the arts and humanities? can we stand as a civilisation with no knowlege of the achievements and ideas that have gone before?

without the arts, what use is there in business, commerce, law, medicine?

Have to agree with this. There should be no cut-backs at all.

Also, I have to comment on the remark you made about archaeology,

firespinner wrote:

Archaology-Its an important subject but only very limited numbers are needed.

How many accountants are needed, or physicists, or computer science graduates, etc etc etc? Should these subjects be cut back too?

Not every person who takes the subject will go on to have a career in that subject. That's the whole point of arts. It's not as career oriented as a lot of other subjects in UCD. It's about doing what you're interested in and then if you feel you want to go on and specify in a certain area after you get your degree then you have the opportunity to do so, and it is here that the numbers will be limited.

Just because some people view a subject as "dodgy" or "less important" than others doesn't mean other people should be denied the opportunity to find out for themselves if it's something they would like to pursue in the future.

Just because an arts degree won't land you a career immediately doesn't make it any less valuable.

Personally I wouldn't cut anything. There should be an option on the poll to reflect that response.

Mr_Roger_Bongos

On the topic of arts, but on a more general note -

I think arts is a great course, if you applied yourself and actually had comprehension of what your studying, as opposed to just stumbling through your exams.

Before coming to ucd, i was browsing throught the ucd prospectus, and though arts looked great. So much choice of topics, you could definately find something of interest. It was only when my father said "low points = dodgy course" that i looked at others. I do b+l now, and am happy enough with it, but i think the arts system is a decent one.

You do the course and then you can specialise with another degree if you choose, similar to the american college system. I think it's got a bad rep because of the majority of students who choose it as an 'easy option'.

GO ORTS!:D

m1ke

There should probably be some distinction made between the human sciences, languages and humanities subjects. You have more or less spared languages and the social sciences. All except philosophy.... which is a really important human science. The interdisciplinary nature of these subjects needs to be stressed.

Research institutes within the college have groups of researchers drawn from several different areas like economics, politics, social policy etc... working on projects together. When you're conducting advanced research you need to take modules in philosophy as it has very practical applications.... yes even in economics. It helps to form models with real world applications. To suggest that it is a hollow science..... is well... doesn't need further discussion to be honest.

However, a lot of these subjects will cap themselves naturally if UCD reduces its overall intake of arts students or introduces more mode I options and caps students via that. So they might actually cap students in the way you have mentioned.... it is not beyond the bounds of possibility.

Other then that: I can think of commercial applications for music, history of art etc... some lend themselves to commercialisation more than others. This would make them very viable..... However, this is more along the lines of what an institute of tech would do.

Chinafoot

Mr_Roger_Bongos wrote:

I think it's got a bad rep because of the majority of students who choose it as an 'easy option'.

It's unfortunate too because this is such a common misconception. Arts is by no means easy. There may not be as many hours as other subjects but there can be a hell of a lot of material to cover depending on what subjects you put together. For example, I do English and History. That is a massive amount of reading for both subjects.

In my opinion, arts is a very valuable course. I don't quite know what it is I want to do for the rest of my life but I know what I am interested in and I wanted to learn more about those subjects and get a good qualification along the way.

That's not taking anything away from "practical" subjects like business/law/commerce etc. If you know what you want to do then kudos to you and I wish you the best of luck in trying to reach your goals.

Again, cut backs in the humanities subjects are bad, mmmkay.

The_Minister

ferdi wrote:

agreed, but waht use is wealth and an economy without the arts?

Even if they were cut, do you think they would die? I like Shakesphere, Beethoven and I've just started Ivanhoe and I study none of these.

Peachypants wrote:

Personally I wouldn't cut anything. There should be an option on the poll to reflect that response.

I don't want to cut anything either, but the question is, if you had to. Or even just reassign some funding.

The comment about Archaeology was because it is a specialised subject whose knowledge is useless to those who don't make a career of it. Accountants can do their own taxes.

ferdi

Mr_Roger_Bongos wrote:

t was only when my father said "low points = dodgy course" that i looked at others. I do b+l

and the lesson is....dont listen to your parents!

Chinafoot

Firespinner wrote:

The comment about Archaeology was because it is a specialised subject whose knowledge is useless to those who don't make a career of it. Accountants can do their own taxes.

Ah you see this is the fundamental difference between you and I firespinner...I would never, ever consider knowledge of a subject to be "useless" simply because I don't plan to have a career in it.

I won't be making one of those "if your life depended on it" decisions. There should be no cut-backs in my opinion.

singingstranger

Yeah, this will all inevitably boil down to personal interest in each of the subjects. Don't you think that if there was a genuinely useless subject left within Arts, that Brady & Co would have eliminated it when they were reforming all the Schools within the Colleges?

tintinr35

I am not voting in that poll because the question is stupid tbh, you cannot justify cutbacks, if there are cutbacks in arts then why not in Eng, Medicine, Commerce etc

hullaballoo wrote:

Firespinner, you're not arrogant.

i am afraid we disagree here Hullaballoo.

So Firespinner its great that you have had the time to take classes in EVERY course in the Arts faculty and have managed in your infinate wisdom on each one to dismiss a large majority of them outright.


i will just take my two subjects as an example here as i dont presume to know everything unlike someone else!

Politics: i am now in my third year of studying this and so far i have not learned anything of any great significance to anything other than passing the exam at the end of the year, sure i have gained a slightly better insight into the mechanics of the workings of some institutions of the state and of the EU etc but nothing that would benifit me in a work related scenario, i would almost certainly need a post grad of some sort to deepen my understanding and workable knowledge of a particular subject before feeling confident that i would be able to act in any sort of professional capicity.

History of Art: now u said it was "largely useless" how the hell can u just dismiss this outright? i dont know if you have any knowledge of the subject but it would seem not. have you not noticed that in almost every room you walk into there is some sort of art adorning the walls, every city contains art works that are major tourist attractions!! the study of the subject and many if not most others in the arts faculty develop a students ability for critical thinking and development of a skill to read not just the lines but also whats between them!

the arts faculty is underfunded, one cannot disagree with that, the selection of books in the library for one of my subjects is particullarly atrocious (as is my spelling:o ) and in the history of art department 2nd and 3rd year students have to rely on the departments private library which is about half the size of the arts cafe and has to host upwards of 200 students.
despite this i do believe that cutbacks are not the way forward!!

Firespinner you place the importance of the study of Welsh higher than some of the other subjects on offer because "of its proximity" i think that really says it all about your critical thinking skills or lack thereof!

pretty*monster

Can a mod add 'First years don't know everything about everything and thankfully the liberal arts can survive their disdain' as a option please

Firespinner wrote:

Philosophy. As a subject over the ages it has spawned many other now cherished fields of study such as Economics, Politics, Sociology and even Mathematics. For this it deserves respect. But, its children have outgrown it and no longer nurse on't. Has it got any other fields in the metaphorical womb? No. It has given all it can to society. All that is left now is random thoughts, worded to sound profound, telling us nothing. It has become a hollow science, all meaning long since stripped from it. It is one of the oldest disciplines, but it has been exhausted. It is with great regret that I must Cap it.

The weakness, laziness and general lack of rigour contained in your argument proves to me beyond all doubt the value of an intellectually challenging discipline such as philosophy that focuses beyond all else on building strong and logical arguments.

'It has given all it can to society.'
And you know this because...? At the tender age of 19(?) you proclaim yourself to know the limits of a subject whose history stretches back as far as ancient Greeks and beyond, a subject that every civilisation that we have written record for has practiced? Are you for real man, seriously? I know we all like a dig at arts students, but really, your arrogance beggars belief.

'It has become a hollow science, all meaning long since stripped from it'
Are you a philosophy student? If you are, I suggest you drop the subject.
If you are not, exactly where do you get the information needed to make such a blanket statement.

It's highly telling that you suggest keeping english, music and art history, your so called 'social exceptions.' Philosophy would most certainly fit into that category (though it's importance stretches far beyond such trifles).

UCD's philosophy department is without a doubt the finest in Ireland, and one of the best places for phenomenology in Europe. The staff are without exception most helpful and friendly, their teaching skills are mostly far superior to other arts subjects I've taken and academically a good number are near the top of their field. Cutting back philosophy in ucd is simply not going to happen.


Do you actually believe what you're saying, or are you just looking to get into a flame war with me?

Mr.Nice Guy

Zzzzz.

How about we cut back on the Arts course bashing? Eh?

AngelofFire

-Economics-A living science, which is needed and used in daily interpretations of the world. Probably the strongest subject

Surely you dont believe that Economics is the sole paradigm for interpretations of the world. Surely theres more to life than production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.

scop

zzz agreed.

Firespinner, your utterly woeful grasp of good old fashioned thinking suggests a 3 year stint with Philosophy might just be useful.

scop

AngelofFire wrote:

Surely you dont believe Economics is not the sole paradigm for interpretations of the world. Surely theres more to life than production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.

Youre such a sociologist, wheres my Foucault and Marx

pretty*monster

scop wrote:

Firespinner, your utterly woeful grasp of good old fashioned thinking suggests a 3 year stint with Philosophy might just be useful.

As usual, you can say in a sentence what I take five or so paragraphs to say

AngelofFire

scop wrote:

Youre such a sociologist, wheres my Foucault and Marx

Introducing August Comte, the GrandFather of Sociology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auguste_Comte

scop

AngelofFire wrote:

Introducing August Comte, the Father of Sociology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auguste_Comte

Comte is the poor man's Nietzsche. Or to put it another way, Comte is sociology and Nietzsche is philosophy

Blush_01

Firespinner, I dont think you posted this to be deliberately inflammatory, but you've managed to be pretty silly about what you're dealing with here.

If we were to knock something from Arts or reduce it, why shouldn't it be Economics? Economics gets covered in Quinn, do we need it in JHN too? Yes, we do, but a blunderingly naive statement such as the above aids nothing. It's effectively what you've said about many of the subjects you have little knowledge of, or don't really like/care for.

Lets face it, we all have different opinions on the matter, that's what makes the diversity of Arts work. Personally, I have no idea what I'd reduce if I had to. I liked about 2/3 of Philosophy, but part of it drove me nuts as it seemed to embody all that I hate about theory, be it literary or not. I by no means agree that Philosophy is useless though. Think about ethics or logic. And also look at your personal statement on history, then explain how you could possibly think of squashing Philosophy.

I do think that what you were attempting to do has not come across properly, and that you're misunderstood here. But I also think that by meddling with this topic in such a trivial manner you're lining yourself up for a lot of criticism you don't deserve because people feel passionate about their work. Correct me if I'm wrong.

HappyCrackHead

Firespinner wrote:

Economics A living science, which is needed and used in daily interpretations of the world. Probably the strongest subject

Just one small point to make about the part i've emboldend? LIVING? SCIENCE? you've gotta be kidding me.

Do you know what they call economics? The dismal science!

Wanna know why? coz its not a science thats why. theres bugger all scientific about it. I did it in first year and u know what i learned? a big chunk of it is common sense and theres another chunk of it thats just... well... evil heartless money grubbing filth. You can justify child (near slave) labour through economics. Thats what i learned in first year.

dont bother replying to this as is shall be ignoring the rest of this idiotic thread. good day!

Sangre

No cutbacks please! If there weren't people doing subjects like History of Art then how could I feel superior?

Dave!

Oh Sangre...... you loveable minx, you!

GusherING

I find it interesting that you don't want to chop Latin. I actually did Latin for the first semester of first year but then changed to Greek and Roman as they moved way too fast through the course for somebody with only Junior Cert Latin!

When I did Latin though, there were about 9 people in the class, 2 of us were Arst students, the rest of us were doing MA's in Classics. If I had to pick a subject to cutback it would probably be Latin, but tbh, you wouldn't save much money by doing so!

tintinr35

Sangre wrote:

No cutbacks please! If there weren't people doing subjects like History of Art then how could I feel superior?

enjoy it cause the "feeling" of superiority is all u will ever have!!!

bluepencilcase

hrmph... after studying a wee bit of philosophy I came to realise that it is something which both matters not at all but also, in a way, is the only thing that matters. I've always thought that at least a year's worth should be compulsory in schools: philosophy breeds civilization and we could do with a bit of that.

and also: To each his/her own: that's what makes arts geat- there aren't paths laid down but new tracks to be beaten, and i for one love that fact.

beanyb

Firespinner wrote:

and finally we come to the trickiest subject to judge - Philosophy. As a subject over the ages it has spawned many other now cherished fields of study such as Economics, Politics, Sociology and even Mathematics. For this it deserves respect. But, its children have outgrown it and no longer nurse on't. Has it got any other fields in the metaphorical womb? No. It has given all it can to society. All that is left now is random thoughts, worded to sound profound, telling us nothing. It has become a hollow science, all meaning long since stripped from it. It is one of the oldest disciplines, but it has been exhausted. It is with great regret that I must Cap it.

As part of our 1st year history course last year we did a course on the 12th century renaissance. Before this renaissance and the ones that came later most scholars believed that they had discovered all that was there to be discovered. Can you imagine what the world would be like if new philosophers had not challenged this view, which is fairly similar to the view you yourself are now expressing? They did not see the possibility of someone like Marx emerging and having such a huge impact on the world. You're defence of history was that we need to recognise where we came from. Well recognise the arrogance of the past, and please do not go down the same road.

hullaballoo

pretty*monster wrote:

Can a mod add 'First years don't know everything about everything and thankfully the liberal arts can survive their disdain' as a option please

You're the boss.

humbert

I think Firespinner assessed each of the courses well and fairly, however I don't know how much funds resources are put into exch at the moment so couldn't really comment of whether or not they should be cut back. Also I think that the diversity adds to the arts course and I'd hate to see courses being cut back based on their practical worth.

Blowfish

hullaballoo wrote:

You're the boss.

Oh good, I can vote now!

Chinafoot

humbert wrote:

I think Firespinner assessed each of the courses well and fairly

Can't say I agree tbh. I've spent 3 years in Arts and I wouldn't even attempt to evaluate a subject that I have never experienced myself, nevermind trying to do so after my first year.
You'll notice that economics was deemed the most important - what a coincidence that economics is one of firespinner's subjects.

Personally I think it's a pointless thread. You can't expect people to make a choice on what they would cut back on when a lot of people here will have no experience with the subjects in the poll. It's like having an attitude of "Ah philosophy, that sounds a bit wánky. Cut back on that.", while you have never even sat in one philosophy lecture.

For me Arts comes to down to what you are interested in and expanding on that knowledge. It's a kind of personal development degree in a way. Yea it might not land you a career like commerce will, but the qualification will still stand to you regardless.

There should be more funding, not cut-backs.

humbert

peachypants wrote:

There should be more funding, not cut-backs.

Well I certainly agree with that, I was particularly imperssed with his assessment of philosophy, though I missed the bit where he described it as a bit wanky:) I would be surprised if firespinner didn't take the course he deemed to be one of the most important tbh.

Chinafoot

humbert wrote:

Well I certainly agree with that, I was particularly imperssed with his assessment of philosophy, though I missed the bit where he described it as a bit wanky:) I would be surprised if firespinner didn't take the course he deemed to be one of the most important tbh.

Oh I agree...however I don't think you can try an appear to be giving a fair assessment of other subjects when you have only spent a year in the Arts course and haven't experienced them.

Also it could be a case that he has deemed economics as most important because he takes it, not the other way around.

*shrug*

Rnger

Eoin Macollamh wrote:

Ah the arrogance of youth...

What I was going to say but in a far more civilised manner. Less ***'s needed...

blondie83

Sangre wrote:

No cutbacks please! If there weren't people doing subjects like History of Art then how could I feel superior?

Ah Sangre your the best!

But on a more serious note

Peachypants wrote:

Ah you see this is the fundamental difference between you and I firespinner...I would never, ever consider knowledge of a subject to be "useless" simply because I don't plan to have a career in it.

Thats exactly it. Knowledge is knowledge and stays with you whether you plan to make a career out of it or not. I'm an engineer, but that diesn't stop me from reading poetry I like, or learning about archeology and celtic civilisation in my spare time (both topics I'm very interested in). The idea that such subjects should be cut because they're not "practical" or we don't need that many archeologists is ridiculous! It's analogous to say a community centre only offering writing courses to those people that are good enough to become writers, and refusing to allow in everyone else who wants to do it because they enjoy it

Hermione*

I think peachy and pretty*monster put it best for me. Arts is about expanding your knowledge and awraeness of a subject, purely for the benefits of that knowledge. For me, it has a lot to do with learning for the sake of learning (and of course, to pass exams ). I took history simply because I've loved the subject since primary school. It's all I've ever really wanted to do.

As peachy said, it's about personal development, not the commercial realisation of your knowledge after you graduate.

anonymous_joe

Bear in mind that Firespinner's attempting to be vaguely objective. One could argue that philosophy's a useless crock of sh1t if one was so inclined... (I'm not of course but let's not digress...)

I mean, what is a useless subject? Personally, I don't see any knowledge as inherently useless, and wouldn't ever argue in favour of the abandonment of branch of knowledge.

As far as I'm concerned, the arts degree is of great importance to UCD. Almost all of its bad reputation stems from the 'Orts' thing, as well as the fact that a lot of people had it as a back-up (myself included) and a lot of arts students are people who didn't get the course they wanted. Ignore that sh1te, and you'll notice that arts is a challenging degree, has plenty of interesting subjects and is important in maintaining the cultural wealth of this country.

Oh and, what would you rather talk about, philosophy, or quantitative analysis for business?

humbert

anonymous_joe wrote:

Oh and, what would you rather talk about, philosophy, or quantitative analysis for business?

On one occasion in the not too distant past I've had to endure a first year philosophy student, I'd rather have talked about pulling my teeth out witha pair of plyers tbh, but that's not the point. I'm not going to repeat what firespinner said and don't think I could say it better myself. I'm not suggesting it should be cut just that it's not of much practical worth any longer. I repeat I'm not suggesting that this disqualifys it as worth studying out of interest.

Hermione*

anonymous_joe wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, the arts degree is of great importance to UCD. Almost all of its bad reputation stems from the 'Orts' thing, as well as the fact that a lot of people had it as a back-up (myself included) and a lot of arts students are people who didn't get the course they wanted.

I really wanted arts. All my cao choices were either history or politics or both.
I turned down my parents offer to pay whatever it cost for science or comp sci or anything more employment friendly. I put it to Dad that I only really enjoyed history, so what was the point of a degree I didn't enjoy. He saw my way of thinking after a while.

anonymous_joe

humbert wrote:

On one occasion in the not too distant past I've had to endure a first year philosophy student, I'd rather have talked about pulling my teeth out witha pair of plyers tbh, but that's not the point. I'm not going to repeat what firespinner said and don't think I could say it better myself. I'm not suggesting it should be cut just that it's not of much practical worth any longer. I repeat I'm not suggesting that this disqualifys it as worth studying out of interest.

I'd still rather that than Quants... /Shudder

pretty*monster

humbert wrote:

Well I certainly agree with that, I was particularly imperssed with his assessment of philosophy, though I missed the bit where he described it as a bit wanky:)

Firespinners treatment of philosophy was an opinion, not an assessment. An uninformed opinion at that.

hullaballoo

I don't know, I have had fairly good chats with philosophy students. Some of them take the wrong stuff out of it, and that can be depressing, but others view things differently, and that can be quite enlightening.

Aside from philosophy, I would contend that rather than cutting back on what some people have termed the "useless" subjects, they should expand the courses that are offered, both in terms of range and depth.

I'd like to see more courses being offered in more specific areas. I think a degree in diplomacy would be a very handy thing to have - the doors that would open up to graduates would be almost innumerable.

In addition, the subjects are taught in a very shallow way at the moment, and I think that deepening these should be a priority.

Education is not just about preparing yourself for a career for some people. Sometimes, people just want to learn. I would fully advocate that.