Easy Elective Choices

wheatser

Hey, Im in the process of changing my elective for semester 2. I'm in final year so would prefer an elective that is not demanding but yet easy to get a high result in. just wondering does anybody know any good electives to choose that would fit this criteria. Thanks and good luck to everyone in the exams!

Ernie Ball

wheatser wrote: »

Hey, Im in the process of changing my elective for semester 2. I'm in final year so would prefer an elective that is not demanding but yet easy to get a high result in. just wondering does anybody know any good electives to choose that would fit this criteria. Thanks and good luck to everyone in the exams!

Nice to see you make the most of the educational opportunity that the taxpayer is giving you.

This is why fees are a necessity.

Bubs101

Stop being such a fag, he probably needs to get his GPA up and the easiest way to do that is find some kind of piss easy elective that's a guaranteed A. I'm looking for two of them

wheatser

Ernie Ball wrote: »

Nice to see you make the most of the educational opportunity that the taxpayer is giving you.

This is why fees are a necessity.

dont give that **** about fees, if fees were in place people would most definitely be picking easy electives to make sure they do well. Personally i tihink the elective system is a waste of time!!

so in your own opinion do you think i should pick a difficult elective and struggle through it all semester and barely scrape a pass meaning my GPA takes a battering. I suppose at least i'll be making the most of the taxpayers money!! seriously, you and i know that nearly everyone in UCD wants to beat the system and if you ask me picking an easy elective is a sure way to bettering your GPA, so do everyone a favour and just cope on to the real world.

Alyosha

I've been recommended FIN30130, Financial Management. It's a 100% 3hr exam which is seemingly easy to get high marks in.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

ECON10030, COMP10030

Search for the previous threads on this very topic.

Notorious

Ernie Ball wrote: »

Nice to see you make the most of the educational opportunity that the taxpayer is giving you.

This is why fees are a necessity.

:rolleyes: Go on, get back up on 'yer horse and get outta here.

Try Geog10040 Intro to Human Geog II. Its the continuation of a first semester class, but taking the previous class isn't required. Easy stuff, real common sense. If you go to all the lectures you'll be sorted. The assessment is split 50-50 between two or three assignments and an end of semester MCQ.

Frisbee

Ernie Ball wrote: »

Nice to see you make the most of the educational opportunity that the taxpayer is giving you.

This is why fees are a necessity.

:rolleyes:
Why would you take a hard elective that you have to spend more time one and so probably not do aswell in your actual subjects and probably affect your grades...

COMP20130 is supposed to be fairly easy, I'm doing it next semester

Bubs101

Computer Forensics? The rundown looks fairly easy actually

Mr Minraise

Alyosha wrote: »

I've been recommended FIN30130, Financial Management. It's a 100% 3hr exam which is seemingly easy to get high marks in.

Terrible advice, its actually quite a toughy.

Id try anything in bogScience tbh. Heard most of the modules there are 'monkey see, monkey do' standard.

Also agree on the point about the fees. Too many ppl just scraping into college and bringing down the standard for us all.

dyl10

Mr Minraise wrote: »

Also agree on the point about the fees. Too many ppl just scraping into college and bringing down the standard for us all.

I really don't think that was his point...

dosed

go with computer forensics.
the end of term paper is an hour long and very very easy.
the rest is a journal and an essay. journal is easy if you go to the lectures. and the essay can be on pretty much anything that interests you on th topic.
I got an A in it last semester without knowing jack about computers.

Frisbee

Bubs101 wrote: »

Computer Forensics? The rundown looks fairly easy actually

Looks piss easy.
Also 'Intro to Project Management' from Comp Sci is supposedly very easy aswell

gerry87

Ernie Ball wrote: »

Nice to see you make the most of the educational opportunity that the taxpayer is giving you.

This is why fees are a necessity.

Ernie waits for this thread every year...

OP, depends what you're into. Do you like essays? Maths? Music? Languages? Subjects are really only easy when you enjoy them.

Ernie Ball

Bubs101 wrote: »

Stop being such a fag, he probably needs to get his GPA up and the easiest way to do that is find some kind of piss easy elective that's a guaranteed A. I'm looking for two of them

The taxpayers don't give a monkey's about his artificially trumped-up GPA. Morons seem to think that the grades are an end in themselves.

We're sending him there to learn something but he's apparently not interested in that.

Ernie Ball

wheatser wrote: »

dont give that **** about fees, if fees were in place people would most definitely be picking easy electives to make sure they do well. Personally i tihink the elective system is a waste of time!!

so in your own opinion do you think i should pick a difficult elective and struggle through it all semester and barely scrape a pass meaning my GPA takes a battering. I suppose at least i'll be making the most of the taxpayers money!! seriously, you and i know that nearly everyone in UCD wants to beat the system and if you ask me picking an easy elective is a sure way to bettering your GPA, so do everyone a favour and just cope on to the real world.

Students "beating the system" is exactly why they should be paying for it. Then they'll only be cheating themselves instead of cheating both themselves and the taxpayer.

I don't think you should pick easy or difficult electives. I don't think that such considerations should even enter into the choice. Rather, you should pick electives that interest you without any consideration of their "difficulty."

But, in my experience, people like you aren't interested in much. All they care about is the gold star on the forehead so they can go out and make money and end their lives without too much thought about what it all means.

papajimsmooth

He probably just wants to up his GPA to avail of better job prospects/further his education, which is perfectly acceptable as i figure thats why people go to college in the first place. No need to be a dick about it. Not all of us are as "brilliant" as you.

Ernie Ball

papajimsmooth wrote: »

He probably just wants to up his GPA to avail of better job prospects/further his education, which is perfectly acceptable as i figure thats why morons go to college in the first place.

I fixed the quote for you.

Anyway, if what you say were true, we'd be better off replacing our universities with printing presses and churning out the parchments without bothering with the actual teaching and research. It'd save a lot of money, too.

Breezer

Ernie, out of interest, are you a robot programmed solely to churn out the same answer to this question in as many ways as possible?

Anyway OP, my answer to this, as always, is Introduction to Calculus. If you managed Leaving Cert. maths you'll fly through it, in fact half of it is Junior Cert. algebra. In fact, this module sort of makes me see Ernie's point.

bnt

I don't doubt that there are some objectively easy electives out there... but what if the College in question finds out that a particular subject gets touted as an "easy elective"? They might beef it up, without warning. I mean, come on: do you think UCD would knowingly offer subjects that effectively gave marks away? It would not be good for their reputation.

On the other hand, if you find a subject that interests you, someone else's "hard" subject might be easy for you. Especially if it's something you've seen or read about before, so you have some background in the subject. I've seen Languages mentioned in other threads as good candidates.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

bnt wrote: »

I don't doubt that there are some objectively easy electives out there... but what if the College in question finds out that a particular subject gets touted as an "easy elective"? They might beef it up, without warning. I mean, come on: do you think UCD would knowingly offer subjects that effectively gave marks away? It would not be good for their reputation.

The college can't really interfere with the academic staff. They have freedom to teach more or less what they want afaik.

Ernie Ball

Breezer wrote: »

Ernie, out of interest, are you a robot programmed solely to churn out the same answer to this question in as many ways as possible?

Wow, that's clever. Maybe you're a robot. No, that can't be right. Robots these days can learn things whereas learning something (and having to work hard to learn it) is the worst thing that can befall a UCD student. They're only interested in "learning" things that fall directly into their laps. This impoverishes the educational experience for them and everyone else.

These same students think that the only cognitive process involved in university education is memory. Any course that requires another form of cogitation (e.g. analysis or reasoning) is considered "difficult" and to be avoided at all costs. Such a course could interfere with the all-important balls and parties, don't you know?

Speaking of balls, the students (collectively) have quite the pair complaining about fees while blithely accepting such anti-intellectual attitudes from their fellow students. What this amounts to is this: we want the taxpayer to subsidize our partying (and the granting of our credentials). There is no reason on earth that the taxpayer should do this and they know it. So, nice work ruining free fees for future generations. UCD may become a pure credential factory but at least the cretins going there will have to pay. Pity about anyone actually interested in bettering themselves, however.

33% God

Ernie Ball wrote: »

Wow, that's clever. Maybe you're a robot. No, that can't be right. Robots these days can learn things whereas learning something (and having to work hard to learn it) is the worst thing that can befall a UCD student. They're only interested in "learning" things that fall directly into their laps. This impoverishes the educational experience for them and everyone else.

These same students think that the only cognitive process involved in university education is memory. Any course that requires another form of cogitation (e.g. analysis or reasoning) is considered "difficult" and to be avoided at all costs. Such a course could interfere with the all-important balls and parties, don't you know?

Speaking of balls, the students (collectively) have quite the pair complaining about fees while blithely accepting such anti-intellectual attitudes from their fellow students. What this amounts to is this: we want the taxpayer to subsidize our partying (and the granting of our credentials). There is no reason on earth that the taxpayer should do this and they know it. So, nice work ruining free fees for future generations. UCD may become a pure credential factory but at least the cretins going there will have to pay. Pity about anyone actually interested in bettering themselves, however.

...You can get down now.

bnt

Sean_K wrote: »

The college can't really interfere with the academic staff. They have freedom to teach more or less what they want afaik.

Missed the point, didn't you? Replace "college" with "whoever controls the syllabus" or "the academic staff whose job/reputation is on the line".

I have no "inside information" on exactly what UCD does, but it would not be hard to have the assessment system crunch the numbers and report the mean or median mark for each course. If the results are abnormally high, it's not hard to imagine the Registrar asking the lecturer(s) a few questions. Lecturers can get "assessed" too, you know.

Ernie Ball

bnt wrote: »

Missed the point, didn't you? Replace "college" with "whoever controls the syllabus" or "the academic staff whose job/reputation is on the line".

I have no "inside information" on exactly what UCD does, but it would not be hard to have the assessment system crunch the numbers and report the mean or median mark for each course. If the results are abnormally high, it's not hard to imagine the Registrar asking the lecturer(s) a few questions. Lecturers can get "assessed" too, you know.

That never happens. However, any self-respecting lecturer who knew that his/her course was being taken because it was perceived to be "easy" would immediately change the entire course.

That said, observe how the Brady administration is the perfect anti-intellectual supplier to the anti-intellectual wants of the students. How so? Well, they have implemented policies whereby what counts most for the funding of a School is the number of "bums on seats" (yes, that's how they refer to you). What is the easiest way for a School to ensure large numbers of bums on seats? Be perceived as easy and students will flock.

So you want dumbed-down courses and now the Schools have an incentive to give them to you. Soon you will have courses in "Britney Spears Studies." The whole thing spirals downward until you'll be getting course credit for the ability to sign your own name.

Might as well replace the whole thing with a printing press, like I say. . . .

Ernie Ball

33% God wrote: »

...You can get down now.

Ah, yes, the old "high horse": the eternal non-argument of those who are content to wallow in ****. Slave morality in action. Nobody should ever know more or learn more. If they do, trot out the high horse. That'll bring 'em down with the rest of you.

I don't suppose it has occurred to you that education is supposed to be about making yourself something more than you already are, of raising not only your abilities but also your standards. Instead, you'd rather mock anyone who actually has been educated. You find it comforting.

Since you think in pictures and not in ideas, you'll be relieved to know that that's the way the university is heading. Soon a parchment will be available to anyone who can correctly identify the picture of the burger and distinguish it from the picture of the fries.

Économiste Monétaire

Ernie Ball wrote: »

That never happens. However, any self-respecting lecturer who knew that his/her course was being taken because it was perceived to be "easy" would immediately change the entire course.

Wrong. Certain modules have specific content that must be taught for students to have the ability to progress through the levels of modules offered by the School, so a lecturer cannot change the entire course at a whim. What is 'easy' and what is 'difficult' is relative to ability, Ernie. One module that has been mentioned, and is consistently mentioned as being very simple, is ECON10030. Yet, every semester, the failure rate is very high.

Ernie Ball

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

Wrong. Certain modules have specific content that must be taught for students to have the ability to progress through the levels of modules offered by the School, so a lecturer cannot change the entire course at a whim.

They can most certainly change enough to change the student perception of it from "easy" to "hard." After all, those perceptions have no empirical basis whatsoever. Change the exam questions, type of assessment, frequency of assignments. All of that can be done without much in the way of consultation.

What is 'easy' and what is 'difficult' is relative to ability, Ernie.

Now you're making my points for me.

One module that has been mentioned, and is consistently mentioned as being very simple, is ECON10030. Yet, every semester, the failure rate is very high.

That's because those looking for "easy electives" tend to be rather stupid and therefore prone to failure.

Économiste Monétaire

Ernie Ball wrote: »

They can most certainly change enough to change the student perception of it from "easy" to "hard." After all, those perceptions have no empirical basis whatsoever. Change the exam questions, type of assessment, frequency of assignments. All of that can be done without much in the way of consultation.

The course content remains the same because certain courses are foundations for all other levels--there is no room for manoeuvre--and so the exam is still based on the same (specific) material. There are only so many different ways you can phrase an exam in more mathsy modules, rather than essay questions. Assignments are an option, but you then have to alter the grading scheme.

Ernie Ball wrote: »

That's because those looking for "easy electives" tend to be rather stupid and therefore prone to failure.

The exact opposite actually happens. It's not the people in their second and third years that fail the course. The core group it's supposed to be focused on are the ones failing it; not the persons who are looking for an easy elective.

Breezer

Ernie Ball wrote: »

Wow, that's clever. Maybe you're a robot. No, that can't be right. Robots these days can learn things whereas learning something (and having to work hard to learn it) is the worst thing that can befall a UCD student. They're only interested in "learning" things that fall directly into their laps. This impoverishes the educational experience for them and everyone else.

These same students think that the only cognitive process involved in university education is memory. Any course that requires another form of cogitation (e.g. analysis or reasoning) is considered "difficult" and to be avoided at all costs. Such a course could interfere with the all-important balls and parties, don't you know?

Ernie, I'm not getting into it. You know absolutely nothing about me, and the person you've depicted there actually couldn't be further from the truth. I actually happen to agree with you for the most part on this issue, I just don't jump on my high horse (because that's exactly what it is) and start condemning everyone else.

Speaking of balls, the students (collectively) have quite the pair complaining about fees while blithely accepting such anti-intellectual attitudes from their fellow students. What this amounts to is this: we want the taxpayer to subsidize our partying (and the granting of our credentials). There is no reason on earth that the taxpayer should do this and they know it. So, nice work ruining free fees for future generations. UCD may become a pure credential factory but at least the cretins going there will have to pay. Pity about anyone actually interested in bettering themselves, however.

You're now being ridiculous. Fees, free or otherwise, have absolutely nothing to do with easy electives, and everything to do with the handling/mishandling of the economy (by various governments over the years, depending on which side of the debate you fall on).

Returning to the original question, +1 for languages (which I don't think even you could argue against Ernie). If you're doing a science-type course you could see if you're eligible for "Biology for the Modern World," I haven't done it but I've heard it's fairly simple. Or you could go for "Stem Cells - An Introduction to Regenerative Medicine." There's no final exam in this one, an MCQ at mid term and a group presentation on a topic of your choice in Week 11 (which requires research and analysis, Ernie), and if you've an interest in the area it's well worth it.

bnt

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

Wrong. Certain modules have specific content that must be taught for students to have the ability to progress through the levels of modules offered by the School, so a lecturer cannot change the entire course at a whim. What is 'easy' and what is 'difficult' is relative to ability, Ernie. One module that has been mentioned, and is consistently mentioned as being very simple, is ECON10030. Yet, every semester, the failure rate is very high.

I think we have a clash of terminology here. In UCD terms, a Course = a Module, such as ECON10030. A degree (e.g. DN078) follows a Programme, it is not called a Course. No-one's suggesting that any one lecturer would have authority over the content of individual courses/modules in that degree programme except their own. Each degree has a programme coordinator, who controls which courses/modules are in that degree Programme, but not much more than that.

I have only two elective options left in my degree, but I'll do what I did with the first two: pick something that interests me. I'll be likely to find that easier than any out-of-programme "easy elective", but even if I don't (which is happening to a point this semester), I'll still be happier afterwards, having taken a course that interested me.

It would need to go really badly to have a significant impact on my GPA - and GPA is not the only reason I'm at UCD. I'd hate to be in a position where I'd be looking to an elective to compensate for poor performance in a core course. I'd be wondering if I was doing the wrong degree... :eek:

Raphael

Apparently I need to remind people that personal abuse is against the charter. This saddens me. And pisses me off.

So next person to break the charter in this thread, will be taking a bit of a break.

33% God

Ernie Ball wrote: »

Ah, yes, the old "high horse": the eternal non-argument of those who are content to wallow in ****. Slave morality in action. Nobody should ever know more or learn more. If they do, trot out the high horse. That'll bring 'em down with the rest of you.

I don't suppose it has occurred to you that education is supposed to be about making yourself something more than you already are, of raising not only your abilities but also your standards. Instead, you'd rather mock anyone who actually has been educated. You find it comforting.

Since you think in pictures and not in ideas, you'll be relieved to know that that's the way the university is heading. Soon a parchment will be available to anyone who can correctly identify the picture of the burger and distinguish it from the picture of the fries.

And the solution to that is to charge fees? Talk about throwing th baby out with the bathwater.

I fail to see how introducing fees would stop people from taking easy electives. To be honest I could only see it encouraging it. if I were here and paying fees I'd certainly be taking easier electives than I am now because I couldn't risk that amount of money. Of course if fees come in I won't be able to be here, and I will have to learn to distinguish the burgers from the fries.

Ernie Ball

33% God wrote: »

And the solution to that is to charge fees? Talk about throwing th baby out with the bathwater.

Fees are not a solution to this problem. Rather, their reintroduction will simply add an element of justice so that rather than cheating the taxpayers, students will only be cheating themselves.

But I think we should really take this "easy electives" stuff to its logical conclusion and just forget about electives altogether and spot everyone 5 credits and 4 grade points for nothing. It'll be a lot cheaper and every bit as educational (i.e., not at all).

But why stop there? Let's go the whole way and spot everyone 90 credits and 4.0 GPAs and not bother having any teaching. What's the point of teaching to students who couldn't give a **** about the subjects?

33% God

Ernie Ball wrote: »

Fees are not a solution to this problem. Rather, their reintroduction will simply add an element of justice so that rather than cheating the taxpayers, students will only be cheating themselves.

So your idea is that instead of the taxpayer having its future generation be those who were the best they will instead have those whose Daddies could afford it because a few people decided to take it easy for five credits? I don't agree with doing it, but I do see why people would. It can allow them to focus more time on another module that they find very difficult and that they may feel a thorough understanding of is essential to their future.

But I think we should really take this "easy electives" stuff to its logical conclusion and just forget about electives altogether and spot everyone 5 credits and 4 grade points for nothing. It'll be a lot cheaper and every bit as educational (i.e., not at all).

But why stop there? Let's go the whole way and spot everyone 90 credits and 4.0 GPAs and not bother having any teaching. What's the point of teaching to students who couldn't give a **** about the subjects?

Strawmen sure are fun :rolleyes:

Ernie Ball

33% God wrote: »

So your idea is that instead of the taxpayer having its future generation be those who were the best

Best at what? Best at choosing their courses solely on the basis of the minimal effort required?

The degree of self-flattery combined with abject laziness in the typical UCD student is not to be believed. The very same people who think it's perfectly acceptable to choose electives solely in virtue of their "easiness" will, in the next breath, be happy to proclaim to the world how they are "the best."

they will instead have those whose Daddies could afford it because a few people decided to take it easy for five credits?

Would that the problem were limited to that. Face it: dossing, cheating, and gaming the system are endemic at UCD.

I don't agree with doing it, but I do see why people would. It can allow them to focus more time on another module that they find very difficult and that they may feel a thorough understanding of is essential to their future.

That's an argument for doing away with electives.

Strawmen sure are fun :rolleyes:

You wouldn't know a straw man if he hit in you in face with his thatched paw. The term you were looking for was not a "straw man argument" but a "reductio ad absurdum." There is nothing wrong with such an argument, which merely teases out the logical implications of the eternal UCD student's quest for "easy electives."

Frisbee

Ernie Ball wrote: »

Best at what? Best at choosing their courses solely on the basis of the minimal effort required?

We're not talking about choosing courses here.
We're talking about choosing electives.

Why pick a hard elective that's going to take away from your study time for modules you actually care about and are part of your degree when you can pick two easy one's, save yourself some hassle and have more time to work on the modules that are part of your degree?!?

Ernie Ball

Frisbee wrote: »

We're not talking about choosing courses here.
We're talking about choosing electives.

Why pick a hard elective that's going to take away from your study time for modules you actually care about and are part of your degree when you can pick two easy one's, save yourself some hassle and have more time to work on the modules that are part of your degree?!?

That's just a confession of your own limitations. As if the only thing that could be sacrificed for the sake of your education is other parts of your education.

Breezer

Ernie Ball wrote: »

That's just a confession of your own limitations. As if the only thing that could be sacrificed for the sake of your education is other parts of your education.

Ernie, for many people (and employers) academic education is not the be all and end all of life, or even of college. For you, it is. We get it.

Frisbee

Ernie Ball wrote: »

That's just a confession of your own limitations. As if the only thing that could be sacrificed for the sake of your education is other parts of your education.

So your saying you prefer to avoid the path of least resistance?

Ernie Ball

Breezer wrote: »

Ernie, for many people (and employers) academic education is not the be all and end all of life, or even of college. For you, it is. We get it.

No, you don't get it. What can you (or anyone else) know about the "ends" of life if you aren't sufficiently educated to have even the foggiest idea of the kinds of answers great minds throughout history have given to that very question?

So no, it is not that "academic education is the be all and end all of life." It is that, without academic education, it is virtually impossible to have any sense of what the possible candidates for "the be all and end all of life" might be.

As for what employers want:

1) it is a perversion of the idea of a university for it to be nothing more than vocational training;
2) you'll have to provide the argument to convince me that employers want a bunch of dossers who game every system and always take the easy way out.

Ernie Ball

Frisbee wrote: »

So your saying you prefer to avoid the path of least resistance?

Hey, you're no dummy.

Not only is that what I'm saying, but I'll go further and say this: the "path of least resistance" is inimical to the very idea of education.

Donald-Duck

Ernie since you seem to be a bit blind or living in a cave screaming your head off and not listening to anyone else, not everyone wants electives. I'd much prefer to have 12 modules from within my stream but thats not possible since all the electives are my cores. So I pick easy ones to fill in the space. I've no interest in learning about some topic that has no relevance to me. So I'm going to take all the maths modules that I covered in the leaving cert and just sit the exam without going to a lecture. I'm happy and it doesn't interfere with your life in any way so get over yourself.

And I know this is the case with a lot of other students.

Breezer

Ernie Ball wrote: »

No, you don't get it. What can you (or anyone else) know about the "ends" of life if you aren't sufficiently educated to have even the foggiest idea of the kinds of answers great minds throughout history have given to that very question?

So no, it is not that "academic education is the be all and end all of life." It is that, without academic education, it is virtually impossible to have any sense of what the possible candidates for "the be all and end all of life" might be.

Ernie I'm not talking about the meaning of life and you know it. I'm talking about what people want to do with their lives, what they want to do with their time in college, and what employers like to see potential employees doing with said time. Contrary to what you seem to believe, that isn't, in every single person's case, to ponder great issues and learn for the sake of academic learning. In some cases it is, and that's fine too.

As for what employers want:

1) it is a perversion of the idea of a university for it to be nothing more than vocational training;
2) you'll have to provide the argument to convince me that employers want a bunch of dossers who game every system and always take the easy way out.

A university, for you, is a place of learning purely for the sake of learning. For many others (I suspect the majority), it is a means to an end, and is indeed a place to pursue vocational training. There is nothing wrong with either viewpoint; to each his own. Kindly deal with this fact, because no amount of protesting or finger wagging on your part is going to change this.

You know fine well that I'm not referring to dossing when I say "this is what employers want." I am referring to employers looking for well-rounded individuals, who are capable of reason and analysis as you say, but who are also equipped with basic facts about everyday situations that they'll encounter in their working lives (yes, there is a place for learning things off), have good social skills (building relationships is quite important in the world of work you know), can take on responsibility (in university this could take the form of running clubs/societies/union involvement, for example), and yes, who can play a system in order to achieve the best results for a company. Life outside of academia is very different to the utopia you want to live in, and even academia requires the above-mentioned skills.

Finally, I'm going to ask you (I suspect in vain) to withdraw your remark about me not being "sufficiently educated," as it is groundless. I repeat: you do not know the slightest thing about me, and are in no position to judge me.

Raphael, apologies for feeding the troll, but I'm not taking that from him.

Ernie Ball

Donald-Duck wrote: »

Ernie since you seem to be a bit blind or living in a cave screaming your head off and not listening to anyone else, not everyone wants electives. I'd much prefer to have 12 modules from within my stream but thats not possible since all the electives are my cores. So I pick easy ones to fill in the space. I've no interest in learning about some topic that has no relevance to me.

What makes you think you're competent to decide what's "relevant" to you if you haven't been exposed to anything more than an extremely thin sliver of what has been thought and done?

Bubs101

Don't feed the trolls

Ernie Ball

Breezer wrote: »

Ernie I'm not talking about the meaning of life and you know it. I'm talking about what people want to do with their lives

And you think that that question has nothing to do with the broader and deeper question of what life is for? Well, you're wrong. Rather, people think that they know the only possible answer to the question is: find a job, make money, have the crack, wonder what it was all about and then die. That is one answer among thousands, but it is the only one that occurs to the average UCD student. That is a failure of education that a properly functioning elective system (or, even better, a proper set of distribution requirements) would rectify.

Contrary to what you seem to believe, that isn't, in every single person's case, to ponder great issues and learn for the sake of academic learning.

A life led without having "pondered" the answers that humans have given to the question of life's meaning (or, if you prefer, its "ends": the "what should I/we do?" question) in an organized way is a life that is led blindly. University is the one place where that "pondering" can go on.

A university, for you, is a place of learning purely for the sake of learning. For many others (I suspect the majority), it is a means to an end, and is indeed a place to pursue vocational training.

Since when do individuals get to decide what institutions are? "Well, for me, the military is a giant jam doughnut with a marzipan filling; for you, it might be something else."

My view of what the University is is one that has come from knowing something about its history and its conception, from the medieval university to the modern Humboldtian research university. You, on the other hand, know nothing about what a university is. And we're supposed to put these two views--the knowledgeable and the ignorant--on an equal footing. That is your educational philosophy in a nutshell. Writ large it is the death of the university, which is why I say we might as well replace it with a printing press.

This perversion of the university that took place when room was made for vocational training as though that were an academic subject is nothing more than a big business takeover: getting the state to provide the training that the businesses should be providing themselves. It is exactly the sort of perversion that venality and greed bring to every other institution (music and the other arts, to take only one example). It is disheartening, however, to see students so enthusiastic about embracing their own mental slavery. For that is what it is.

There is nothing wrong with either viewpoint; to each his own. Kindly deal with this fact, because no amount of protesting or finger wagging on your part is going to change this.

What fact is that? That your entirely ignorant (literally: you know nothing about the university as a historical institution) view and my informed one are on an equal footing? Well, sorry, that's not a fact and I therefore can't accept it as one.

You know fine well that I'm not referring to dossing when I say "this is what employers want." I am referring to employers looking for well-rounded individuals, who are capable of reason and analysis as you say, but who are also equipped with basic facts about everyday situations that they'll encounter in their working lives (yes, there is a place for learning things off), have good social skills (building relationships is quite important in the world of work you know), can take on responsibility (in university this could take the form of running clubs/societies/union involvement, for example), and yes, who can play a system in order to achieve the best results for a company.

Really now. They want employees who can get away with, for example, impressing the boss with results that they haven't really achieved (which is what this thread is about)? What kind of "playing of the system" do you have in mind? Because there's no reason for an employer to think that a student who "takes the path of least resistance" isn't going to do exactly the same in his job and not for the benefit of his employer.

As for the "well-rounded invidividuals": you'll have to explain to me how students who cheat the very system that is supposed to help make them "better rounded" end up, magically, becoming "well rounded." Try not to forget what we're talking about here.

Finally, I'm going to ask you (I suspect in vain) to withdraw your remark about me not being "sufficiently educated," as it is groundless. I repeat: you do not know the slightest thing about me, and are in no position to judge me.

I disagree. As you might put it: "For you, you're educated. For me, you're not. There is nothing wrong with either viewpoint; to each his own. Kindly deal with this fact, because no amount of protesting or finger wagging on your part is going to change this."

More seriously, I base my view that you are not sufficiently educated on the tenor and content of your responses here. You'll have to do better to convince me otherwise.

Raphael, apologies for feeding the troll, but I'm not taking that from him.

Interesting how someone who injects the tiniest scintilla of thought into a boards.ie thread is invariably called a "troll."

Shazbot

God, I swore O wouldn't get in on this arguement but here goes. Even though I agree with many points adress by both sides of the table I find Ernies are alot more condescending and insulting. You don't show an ounce of respect for anyone.

Ernie Ball wrote: »

It is disheartening, however, to see students so enthusiastic about embracing their own mental slavery. For that is what it is.

So you want to abolish this 'slavery'. Only let the pure hearted, hard working studious people into third level education?

What fact is that? That your entirely ignorant (literally: you know nothing about the university as a historical institution) view and my informed one are on an equal footing? Well, sorry, that's not a fact and I therefore can't accept it as one.

Breezers fact was that you each have a different viewpoint. Yet you don't want to leave it at that and throw in an insult. Can't you let it rest that you have different viewpoints?

I disagree. As you might put it: "For you, you're educated. For me, you're not. There is nothing wrong with either viewpoint; to each his own. Kindly deal with this fact, because no amount of protesting or finger wagging on your part is going to change this."

More seriously, I base my view that you are not sufficiently educated on the tenor and content of your responses here. You'll have to do better to convince me otherwise.

You insulted someone and made an unfair assumption of their character by a referencing a few posts. Is it fair to insult someone on a few posts? Is that your idea of a good mentality?
You don't have enough evidence (nor will you find it) that they are uneducated.

Why not assume that Breezer is well educated or are you always such a cynic?

Interesting how someone who injects the tiniest scintilla of thought into a boards.ie thread is invariably called a "troll."

While I agree with some of you're points I still feel you're a troll. Yes you brought some thought into the thread and got some people thinking but in order to do so you have insulted many people and dragged the thread way off topic. Therefore you are a troll.

If you want to dicuss the idea of the mentalities of students 'cheating the system and taxpayers' then bring it ofer to the humanities board where you will get a civil debate. You highjacked a thread about elective choices to express your opinion on lazy students. ie. Trolling!

To get back on topic.
It's a sad cliché but I always find the easiest electives are the ones I have an interest in. Find a topic that excites you and do a bit of reading about the module contents and see if you would like to study it.

wheatser

Thanks for those of you who actually answered the topic, it's been a great help to me.

Also, didnt mean to start a full blown argument just looking for some guidance.

With regard to ernie ball, he clearly didnt read the topic correctly. I asked people for advise on easy electives not advice on how to live my life. Surely there are rules in the forum about people who are not answering the topic at all!! Ernie Ball, if you really want to have an argument with people about how you feel about fees, electives, etc. then please just start your own thread.

Once again thanks for the help and hopefully i'll be able to enrol in some of those subjects.

Ernie Ball

wheatser wrote: »

Once again thanks for the help and hopefully i'll be able to enrol in some of those subjects.

Great. Just make sure that, whatever happens, you don't go and actually learn anything because that would require some effort.

Raphael

simonrooneyzaga banned for a week for personal abuse.

Ernie Ball banned indefinitely for consistent off-topic posting, insulting other posters and trolling