Should third-level education be more study-oriented

evercloserunion

Every year, students entering college are more than reassured that they don't have to spend all their time in the library and in fact spending too much time in there is discouraged. Numerous publications by the SU and other student welcoming bodies (NB: not just the SU) stress again and again the importance of not working too hard and getting out and having fun, and then they all plan hundreds of booze-fests and other social activities (but mainly booze-fests, actually it's probably just booze-fests) over the course of the year to let students get away from their studies. But I wonder, if bodies like the SU spent less time preaching to students about the importance of not studying and more time preaching about the importance of studying, might our third level institutions move up in the international rankings and, more importantly, in the eyes of international students and employers?

All this frantic insistence that college is not just about studying seems to be based on the assumption that people go into college thinking that's what college is all about. In reality the impression in most people's minds is quite the opposite, as is evident in Freshers' week. The image most people have of college is of one constant party where you do nothing but drink and ****. Perhaps it's this perception that needs to be challenged? Everybody knows that college is a time to go wild and have fun, and it is. But it's also about studying and bettering yourself and usually building a career which is hard to do when you're too drunk to remember your own name most of the time. Perhaps if we had less institutional endorsement of the neglect of one's studies in favour of going out and getting wasted we would have less students stumbling through college in a drunken stupor and then failing their exams because of it. It might also help the wider social problems caused by young people drinking too much and acting like cretins if such behaviour was not so widely endorsed by various student bodies.

And a related question; should the various student societies and in particular the SU focus more on aiding students' academic development as well as their social development? The SU seem to restrict themselves to organizing social events and do nothing in the way of speakers, guest lectures, debates (proper debates between proper people, not Hist or Phil debates) and other academic and educational events, though I realize it may be difficult for the SU to organize something so general as to please all students. But more subject- and interest-specific student societies could also do more.

Any thoughts?

Terry

Thread cleaned up and moved from AH following a discussion with the OP.

claire h

Re: international rankings - that really has more to do with the amount of money a college has rather than how well undergraduate students are doing. Though I don't see TCD as a place where very many people are failing their exams because they've been out partying all year, honestly - more often I'm impressed with (and a little jealous of, if I'm honest) how people who are heavily involved in societies also manage to get very good degrees. Perhaps it's different in other third-level institutions though?

Tricity Bendix

evercloserunion wrote: »

Every year, students entering college are more than reassured that they don't have to spend all their time in the library and in fact spending too much time in there is discouraged. Numerous publications by the SU and other student welcoming bodies (NB: not just the SU) stress again and again the importance of not working too hard and getting out and having fun, and then they all plan hundreds of booze-fests and other social activities (but mainly booze-fests, actually it's probably just booze-fests) over the course of the year to let students get away from their studies. But I wonder, if bodies like the SU spent less time preaching to students about the importance of not studying and more time preaching about the importance of studying, might our third level institutions move up in the international rankings and, more importantly, in the eyes of international students and employers?

First and foremost, I believe strongly that each individual student is personally responsible for how much work they put in. I don't think that anyone who enters third level needs to have their hand held. Either they have the ability to motivate themselves to succeed or they do not. If they do not, they don't deserve to get as good as a degree. Quite simply, the cream will rise to the top, which is no bad thing. Self-motivation is an important skill, which isn't necessarily learnt at secondary school.

Secondly, most people who I met in college worked quite hard most of the time, and society activities were often a welcome break from their course work. I know I would have gone mental if hadn't gone to the odd talk or debate or whatever. And yes, the receptions afterwards also played a part in my enjoyment of the event, but so what? I like alcohol. That doesn't make me evil or a miscreant. Everybody needs to let loose once in a while.

Thirdly, college is a very rare institution. Less than a year before you enter, you are merely a child, often unable or untrusted to enjoy a proper social life. Many come from rural areas or single-sex schools, and so aren't exposed to the broad social spectrum of people such that you get in college. Less than a year after leaving you can find yourself stuck in a 9 to 5, perhaps with people much older than yourself and to knackered to go out on the weekends. So we should make the most of our free time while we have it and enjoy it with our peers.

And a related question; should the various student societies and in particular the SU focus more on aiding students' academic development as well as their social development? The SU seem to restrict themselves to organizing social events and do nothing in the way of speakers, guest lectures, debates (proper debates between proper people, not Hist or Phil debates) and other academic and educational events, though I realize it may be difficult for the SU to organize something so general as to please all students. But more subject- and interest-specific student societies could also do more.

On the SU aiding academic development: I'm not an expert on what the Education officer does, but I know that they do campaign on library opening hours, which is cool, and that they sometimes hand out free pens and drinks outside exams, which is even cooler. Then there are individual class reps who can help out with deadlines and note sharing and such. There are some good reps and some not so good, but I can't think how a centralised union service could do a better job as you need an intimate knowledge of the class to be effective.

On the SU organising debates and speakers: Nope. There are two debating societies, who also bring in speakers. Now, I have no time for them formal competition-type debates, and would rather leave that to people who do, but I have really enjoyed some debates and speakers, especially those that are connected somehow to politics. I don't know what you mean about 'proper debates between proper people'. The Phisties are usually quite good about getting in people with diverse opinions and people who have real power and influence. I remember on year seeing both Bertie and Bob Geldof, which was pretty sweet. Can't see how the SU could come close to matching what is already provided.

On the subject-specific societies: I only have experience of two of these, the Physoc (which I was a member of) and DUBES (which was the society for the subject I studied), and I have to say I completely agree with you. The Physoc organised weekly talks on subjects related to Physics, but not always connected to course work, and so broadened students' understanding. I was well impressed with the concept and the execution. The only thing I saw the DUBES folk do that was in any way related to business or economics was the post-budget talk, which to be fair was rockin', but still a little underwhelming given the above-average membership fee. They seemed to be fairly in to their parties in clubs and trips away. I’d put that down to a difference in culture between the two subjects.

Jonathan

julep wrote: »

Thread cleaned up and moved from AH following a discussion with the OP.

Out of interest Terry, why was it moved to TCD and not say UCD?

shay_562

'Cause the OP mentioned the Hist and the Phil, which sets it pretty firmly in Trinity territory.

Jonathan

shay_562 wrote: »

'Cause the OP mentioned the Hist and the Phil, which sets it pretty firmly in Trinity territory.

Missed that part

JC 2K3

Societies do plenty, you just have to get involved. And they should be about facilitating activities devoted to their subject, as social, academic or otherwise that might be.

I think there are too many piss ups organised by both the SU and certain societies. What relevence to a society a piss up that's not an after party of an event related to its subject has, I don't know.

Why don't you think the Phil and the Hist run "proper debates between proper people"? I always found their debates to be enjoyable and there're usually interesting guests. (I really should head to one one of these days. Though debating isn't really my thing, my dabbling in it at the start of first year was probably the most enjoyable society experience I've had in Trinity).

In general though, while wasters píss me off a bit too, I think there's a good balance on the emphasis on academics and socialising.

pisslips

Eh yes I completely agree but I think it's a lot to ask of an eighteen year old to realise the seriousness of life.
I went through my undergrad drinking, not following or going to many lectures and basically learning nothing really.
Now I'm doing a masters and I feel like I just left school and am just starting to learn things.Top be honest I'd heard people worked upto 20-30 hours a week but I didn't fully believe it or know what it felt like until it started happening to me.

Really it's a lot to ask of an 18yr old who doesn't really know anything about anything.

PurpleFistMixer

Sorry couldn't read the OP, too busy studying. : p

But... really OP, have you ever been to college, and if so, how long ago was it? I was at a Hist debate chaired by Bertie Ahern, the Provost of Trinity was at one last week or so, are these not "proper" people?
Also, for example, the Maths society meet every Monday to do problem solving sessions, there was a lecture on problem solving given last night for this purpose, they get speakers in about Maths-related stuff all the time. The idea that societies don't get speakers is pretty ridiculous when you consider the large chunk of society funding that goes towards speakers, too.

Tbh I think by college people should be able to balance their time correctly, so while there are certainly a lot of distractions (well, if you like drinking ), I think most people realise you have to do some work, too...

dan719

TCD's assessment procedure creates perverse incentives with regards to study, most courses only have exams in May and apart from essays very little work is required for the rest of the year.Those courses that do have exams at Xmas and Easter such as BESS etc tend still tend to allow one to do nothing as very little value(10-25%) is attached to those exams anyway.

I don't necassarily think this is a bad thing, and a similar argument was made last year in the TN in favour of maintaining the current trimester system.

For two terms the current trinity student can engage in activities ranging from the archaic world of the phil general meetings to being mashed at citi bar every single night. One can read widely outside of their course or can skip every lecture and only discover where the library is on the morning after the <snip>. If at the end of it all one pulls it together three weeks before exams and passes or even aces the exams does that not indicate that the required work has been done? That the college feels that the student has managed to achieve the required standard?

The current setup means that every student will have a large amount of free time for two terms, if they want to study for that time then that is fine, if not that's okay too.

andrew

If you aren't up to dividing your time between study and socialising then you probably shouldn't be in college.

Brian

jmccrohan wrote: »

Missed that part

wall of text
tl;dr

?

evercloserunion

Thanks for the replies all, I don't have much time but I just want to respond to people regarding my "proper debates" comment. I didn't mean to say that the Hist and the Phil have done no good, they have. Many of their speakers are class, and it was cool of them to show the Obama inaugration. Also the guests they have at their debates are always very good, and when you have debates loaded with guest speakers it always makes for a good night (I was at one re the Lisbon Treaty before the referendum which was mostly guest speakers, brilliant stuff). The thing is that most debates might have one or two guest speakers, or maybe even just a guest chair, and the rest are student speakers. While I'm sure these debates are excellent for the development of the speakers themselves, I have found that they have little informative or educational value as they generally lack substance. The focus amongst Hist and Phil speakers seems to be on form and presentation (which is generally quite good) but at the end of the day I often find that the arguments consist of repetitions of catchy clichés and many speeches go by without adding anything overwhelmingly original to the debate. While I can definitely see the value of allowing student speakers in debates I think the informative/educational goals of the debates would be better served by a format which focuses more on the guest speakers if there are any.

Any Hist/Phil debaters out there please don't take offence, many of you are excellent and I'm probably just bitter because I don't have the balls to do it meself :P but yeah that's broadly what I meant.

tolosenc

Baza210 wrote: »

?

For me anyway...

b.ie and the cream rising to the top was spot on though.

petrochemical

You should study 8 hours everyday and then you can get the perfect degree. Unfortunately by then you will probably be a social retarded nerd who can't relate to people, like those home schooled dorks in the US. Also your ability to think outside the box will be limited because the real world isn't an exam.

I think it's important to have a balance. The French always go on about how much better their universities are and how much more they study. The problem is, so many people leave with zero social skills, zero ability to relate to other people and unusually self obsessed. This is my own personal view, having worked and studied with people from all over the world. I was an intern in France and I couldn't believe how robotic and devoid of personality everyone was. They took themselves way, way too seriously. Yes, they had an impressive work ethic and were good at what they did, but what's the point if you have the personality of soggy cardboard? Being friendly and personable is just as important as having a good degree.

evercloserunion

petrochemical wrote: »

You should study 8 hours everyday and then you can get the perfect degree. Unfortunately by then you will probably be a social retarded nerd who can't relate to people, like those home schooled dorks in the US. Also your ability to think outside the box will be limited because the real world isn't an exam.

??

There are 24 hours in a day... 8 hours study + 8 hours sleep leaves 8 hours for whatever you want.

I think it's important to have a balance. The French always go on about how much better their universities are and how much more they study. The problem is, so many people leave with zero social skills, zero ability to relate to other people and unusually self obsessed. This is my own personal view, having worked and studied with people from all over the world. I was an intern in France and I couldn't believe how robotic and devoid of personality everyone was. They took themselves way, way too seriously. Yes, they had an impressive work ethic and were good at what they did, but what's the point if you have the personality of soggy cardboard? Being friendly and personable is just as important as having a good degree.

I personally don't think studying makes you a horrible person. I think people are taking the OP the wrong way, I'm not saying students should never socialize, I never said that. I'm just asking, should it be made clear to students that studying is important and partying isn't everything, as well as the other way around? Obviously telling students that studying is as important as partying is not going to turn them into social retards.

petrochemical

evercloserunion wrote: »

??

There are 24 hours in a day... 8 hours study + 8 hours sleep leaves 8 hours for whatever you want.


I personally don't think studying makes you a horrible person. I think people are taking the OP the wrong way, I'm not saying students should never socialize, I never said that. I'm just asking, should it be made clear to students that studying is important and partying isn't everything, as well as the other way around? Obviously telling students that studying is as important as partying is not going to turn them into social retards.

I don't know anybody who could study 8 hours a day. Are you crazy? 5-6 max, more like 3-4, in 45 min sessions, and even then I'd be wrecked from all the concentration. How much of that time is effective study? How much time is wasted? If you've lectures aswell, it's fckin impossible.

Any nerds I've experience of are quite often social retards, who lack empathy and expect people to read their minds. They also lack insight and can't think outside the box. Getting along with people and realising that your little area of expertise does not make you special is vital. But people like to feel important, and they are reluctant to let that go.

PurpleFistMixer

Well, if you take time in lectures etc. as "study" time, 8 hours a day isn't really very long at all... 8 hours a day on top of college, now, that would be inhuman.

petrochemical - from the description of these nerds you've met, I assume you're taking nerd to mean intelligent/very academic social retards. It's hardly surprising then, that they fulfill these criteria... Sort of like saying, "Any blondes I've met have often been quite fair-haired."
If, on the other hand, you're taking "nerd" to mean someone intelligent (let's define it as "doing well in exams", for the sake of clarity), then I must object quite strongly to most of what you've said. I know plenty of people who excel, or if not, do very well academically, and are perfectly rounded, perfectly likable, perfectly "normal" humans. Perhaps the trick is to study when nobody's looking, so they don't see you doing so and assume you to be socially handicapped.

Brian

petrochemical wrote: »

I don't know anybody who could study 8 hours a day. Are you crazy? 5-6 max, more like 3-4, in 45 min sessions, and even then I'd be wrecked from all the concentration. How much of that time is effective study? How much time is wasted? If you've lectures aswell, it's fckin impossible.

Any nerds I've experience of are quite often social retards, who lack empathy and expect people to read their minds. They also lack insight and can't think outside the box. Getting along with people and realising that your little area of expertise does not make you special is vital. But people like to feel important, and they are reluctant to let that go.

I hate you.

Boston

petrochemical wrote: »

Any nerds I've experience of are quite often social retards, who lack empathy and expect people to read their minds. They also lack insight and can't think outside the box. Getting along with people and realising that your little area of expertise does not make you special is vital. But people like to feel important, and they are reluctant to let that go.

People like you tend to defines nerd to mean "social retards, who lack empathy and expect people to read their minds". However when involved with a large number of people who are nerdlings, you see that isn't the case at all. Nerd just means someone intelligent who puts work into academic success. By the time you year final year in college, chances are you've been a nerd at some point in your life.

evercloserunion

I don't know anybody who could study 8 hours a day. Are you crazy? 5-6 max, more like 3-4, in 45 min sessions, and even then I'd be wrecked from all the concentration. How much of that time is effective study? How much time is wasted? If you've lectures aswell, it's fckin impossible.

Trust me, 8 hours isn't that long at all and it isn't hard to study 8 hours a day. I'm including lecture hours in this, by the way. Thus by my definition most people who do lecture-intensive courses like engineering etc study 8 hours a day anyway. If you can't hold concentration for 8 hours a day then you've probably got a problem because in the real world people are expected to concentrate on their jobs for about 8 hours a day. And that's the problem; our third level institutions are breeding a generation of people who can't fathom being sober for 8 hours a day, let alone concentrating on anything for that amount of time.

Any nerds I've experience of are quite often social retards, who lack empathy and expect people to read their minds. They also lack insight and can't think outside the box. Getting along with people and realising that your little area of expertise does not make you special is vital. But people like to feel important, and they are reluctant to let that go.

So you've never met anybody who was intelligent or studious who wasn't also completely socially dysfunctional? I highly doubt that. Like the others who have responded to you, I think you are defining nerds as people who are both studious and socially dysfunctional, which obviously begs the question. I doubt most people who put decent amounts of study into their work aren't "nerds" as you would define the word, and most "nerds" you see would be like that regardless of how much study they put in.

petrochemical

evercloserunion wrote: »

Trust me, 8 hours isn't that long at all and it isn't hard to study 8 hours a day. I'm including lecture hours in this, by the way. Thus by my definition most people who do lecture-intensive courses like engineering etc study 8 hours a day anyway. If you can't hold concentration for 8 hours a day then you've probably got a problem because in the real world people are expected to concentrate on their jobs for about 8 hours a day. And that's the problem; our third level institutions are breeding a generation of people who can't fathom being sober for 8 hours a day, let alone concentrating on anything for that amount of time.


So you've never met anybody who was intelligent or studious who wasn't also completely socially dysfunctional? I highly doubt that. Like the others who have responded to you, I think you are defining nerds as people who are both studious and socially dysfunctional, which obviously begs the question. I doubt most people who put decent amounts of study into their work aren't "nerds" as you would define the word, and most "nerds" you see would be like that regardless of how much study they put in.

I wasn't including lectures. 8hrs lectures +8hrs study leaves 8 hours a day to sleep and nerd it up. Impossible. Even Supernerd himself couldn't do it.

Engineering may be "lecture intensive" as you say, but the lecture notes are essentially straight from a book, and can be learned from a book, by yourself. Most engineering lectures are snooze fests. They don't require the concentration of a science or some med lectures. So many engineers (of all kinds) i know dossed all year, then studied for 3 weeks at the end and got firsts!

And lol @ people in the real world concentrating 8 hours a day! A large part of many jobs is taken up with tedious tasks, phone calls, paperwork, meetings etc, that require very little concentration! The people who can't do those things are the socially inept dorks, who think because they know more maths or whatever that they are better than everyone else.

I know plenty of people who are extremely intelligent and not dysfunctional, but some areas seem to attract more nerds than others. Computers and theoretical physics, for example, are full of them.

thebman

petrochemical wrote: »

I know plenty of people who are extremely intelligent and not dysfunctional, but some areas seem to attract more nerds than others. Computers and theoretical physics, for example, are full of them.

Most of those people are actually fantastic at things like maths. Its the price they pay and they probably would be like that if they weren't on the course anyway.

I know, I did computers and knew some people who struggle socially. At the end of the day, the world actually does need people with their level of maths. Most people in this country are just sh*t at maths. We actually do need these peoples abilities. I think people rarely end up being social and math gods.

Also some of them are just weird and stupid although that probably makes them geeks more than nerds :P

I agree with the study thing to some extent. In your last two years, you have to put in a lot of extra effort though or at least I did.

Went on work experience in college and to be honest, it was a holiday compared to the computer science course I was doing. In final year, I worked harder again. For a couple of weeks, I was working from 9 in the morning until 2 in the morning on my project and not because I hadn't put in the work earlier. It was just necessary to complete that project. At the end of it, I just wanted out of college, couldn't take all the work anymore and didn't want to go on to a postgrad. I just took my degree, got a job and it was again a thousand times easier than my course in college.

I'm not a social retard :P Nor am I stupid :P

pisslips

petrochemical wrote: »

I wasn't including lectures. 8hrs lectures +8hrs study leaves 8 hours a day to sleep and nerd it up. Impossible. Even Supernerd himself couldn't do it.

Engineering may be "lecture intensive" as you say, but the lecture notes are essentially straight from a book, and can be learned from a book, by yourself. Most engineering lectures are snooze fests. They don't require the concentration of a science or some med lectures. So many engineers (of all kinds) i know dossed all year, then studied for 3 weeks at the end and got firsts!

And lol @ people in the real world concentrating 8 hours a day! A large part of many jobs is taken up with tedious tasks, phone calls, paperwork, meetings etc, that require very little concentration! The people who can't do those things are the socially inept dorks, who think because they know more maths or whatever that they are better than everyone else.

I know plenty of people who are extremely intelligent and not dysfunctional, but some areas seem to attract more nerds than others. Computers and theoretical physics, for example, are full of them.

Well, if that isn't the most ridiculous and personally insulting thing I've ever read.
I've a degree in theoretical physics and am studying a computational course, I don't think I'm socially inept. Not that I need to or care about changing your preconceptions. I've captained rugby teams and rode some decent chicks..........happy now?
Oh and I think I'm better than everyone else because I am, it's got nothing to do with what courses I've done or haven't done.:D

I mean really, who gives a ****?

evercloserunion

pisslips wrote: »

Well, if that isn't the most ridiculous and personally insulting thing I've ever read.
I've a degree in theoretical physics and am studying a computational course, I don't think I'm socially inept. Not that I need to or care about changing your preconceptions. I've captained rugby teams and rode some decent chicks..........happy now?
Oh and I think I'm better than everyone else because I am, it's got nothing to do with what courses I've done or haven't done.:D

I mean really, who gives a ****?

Pix or GTFO

kowloon

Some even consider posting on the net at half two on a Sunday morning 'socially retarded' .

Powerhouse

I suppose the real problem with university education is that people sometime get too hung up on the question of the value of lectures i.e. either following them religiously or else beating the system by never turning up, getting the notes and getting a first to show how easy it all is.

The problem is that most students don't read enough, so you can get people with very high marks who were able to prime themselves for a specific exam but who don't really have the commensurate level of broad and deep knowledge that only wide reading can bring.

Unfortunately the nature of terminal exams does little to promote broad reading. Much as students don't like them, exams actually suit students as they are predictable and their pressurised nature lessens the standard expected Also because such under-graduate papers are structured gaps in your knowledge are not as apparent and original thinking is not critical. It is much easier to score high than in a lengthy paper one might have to do as say a post-graduate when you have to give a genuinely exceptional performance to warrant a first. The exam still tends to reward cramming and feats of memory disproportionately and some students can punch above their true intellectual weight marks-wise, without perhaps mastering their area of study to any great extent.

There also is the difficulty in that college happens when people are still so incredibly young - even though they think they are so mature - and I think it is reasonable that they push the boat out socially. There is a price to be paid though in terms of the level of education you acquire if the social side takes an inordinate toll. And the idea that anyone who is not buckled regularly is 'socially retarded' is laughable! Often these are the very people who are so socially retarded they need the gargle to cope.

thebman

I think most people would agree that the main problem with college is that it a lot of it is useless in the real world and only useful in theory.

Work experience should be compulsory in every college course that actually requires you to specialise in something even if that means low wages. I got paid fook all on my work experience but it was a nice break from college and I learned so much from it.

JC 2K3

You have the whole rest of your life for work experience after college....

Let it be theoretically focused, I say.

thebman

JC 2K3 wrote: »

You have the whole rest of your life for work experience after college....

Let it be theoretically focused, I say.

Yes but those 6 months - 1 year work experience are great craic anyway.

You get treated so well because nobody is going to pick on the student

So everyone is so nice its like a holiday compared to a real college course like the one I did.

Plus you get gifts when you leave and paid to help contribute to your next year

Whats not to like?

JC 2K3

Not everyone dislikes their college course enough to want a break from it?

I don't disagree with work experience, I disagree with the compulsory work experience you're suggesting. It's not for everyone.

thebman

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Not everyone dislikes their college course enough to want a break from it?

I don't disagree with work experience, I disagree with the compulsory work experience you're suggesting. It's not for everyone.

I loved my college course

It was just stressful as hell because it was so difficult. I welcomed the break from over 30 hours of lectures a week plus lab work and project work in spare time.

In my 3rd year of college, I got up for lectures and labs at 9 every morning, got out of college at 6 (spent lunch in college working on group project), took an hour for dinner until 7 and worked on my project until 10-11 at night and slept.

Repeat from Sept - Jan exams and then I went on work experience. College was really stressful so I welcomed the break. Still the most rewarding year of college knowing I hadn't let the team down on the group project and being rewarded with good results and getting a job with a good company for my work experience.

JC 2K3

Ok, but that still doesn't mean it should be compulsory..

Powerhouse

thebman wrote: »

I think most people would agree that the main problem with college is that it a lot of it is useless in the real world and only useful in theory.

Work experience should be compulsory in every college course that actually requires you to specialise in something even if that means low wages. I got paid fook all on my work experience but it was a nice break from college and I learned so much from it.

College is hardly useless. The idea would be that a college education produces a person who is well rounded and can apply themselves to anything outside as a result.

Specialisation through work experience misses the point really. College should be about keeping possibilities open rather than closing them down. People will be working for the following 45/50 years. They'll pick up plenty of work experience then. What's the big rush to start during college?

thebman

Powerhouse wrote: »

College is hardly useless. The idea would be that a college education produces a person who is well rounded and can apply themselves to anything outside as a result.

Specialisation through work experience misses the point really. College should be about keeping possibilities open rather than closing them down. People will be working for the following 45/50 years. They'll pick up plenty of work experience then. What's the big rush to start during college?

Never said it was useless. I'm just saying a lot of what you learn is useless and never gets applied in the real world. At least from my course and everyone I know with a similar degree agrees.

Powerhouse

thebman wrote: »

Never said it was useless. I'm just saying a lot of what you learn is useless and never gets applied in the real world. At least from my course and everyone I know with a similar degree agrees.

But for the most part people train on-the-job, so to speak. Most college courses are not about directly training people to do a job. They are about educating people.

If we were looking for direct demonstrable application to specific jobs in the outside world, most of what we do in school, never mind college, would appear to be a waste of time. But that is hardly how we judge education.

You could train a chimpanzee to do various work related tasks. Taking him into a college and getting him to think independently, rigorously and coherently would be a far different task.* There are few jobs that most people could not get to grips with within a few weeks/months - there is no need to start making all college courses vocational.

* I would acknowledge - and I touched on this in an earlier post - that many who don't apply themselves manage to leave college without achieving this.

petrochemical

pisslips wrote: »

Well, if that isn't the most ridiculous and personally insulting thing I've ever read.
I've a degree in theoretical physics and am studying a computational course, I don't think I'm socially inept. Not that I need to or care about changing your preconceptions. I've captained rugby teams and rode some decent chicks..........happy now?
Oh and I think I'm better than everyone else because I am, it's got nothing to do with what courses I've done or haven't done.:D

I mean really, who gives a ****?

You may have a theoretical physics degree, but you failed to understand that I said SOME people who did theoretical physics were socially retarded, not all. And you really think you're better than everyone else? Wow, did you use string theory to prove that one?

pisslips

I don't have a focking clue about string theory, i don't know any undergrad that even touches it.

The reason I know I'm better is because your mammy told me.

Sleazus

I actually learnt a lot more from the social aspects of college than I did from the academic stuff.

I studied Law, and it has absolutely no bearing on my current career. It was great, and I feel better for knowing it (mostly the theory stuff, it's taught me those coveted skills I read about in CV's), but the really useful things I learnt from interacting with a hugely diverse group of people that I never would have known had I remained in my small town/village/"city" (which was full of characters, but I'd grown up with most of them and we all came from same background, so I knew most of them fairly well).

Without getting too Hallmark card about it, I learned a lot about people (and trust and faith and lots of other abstract nouns!). I also learnt that (away from a relatively protective location of a public secondary school or my parents' house) sh!t really did happen - both stuff that I was responsible for (teaching me the Disney-esque value of responsibility) and stuff that I had absolutely no control over (which taught me the slightly more practical lesson that people can do just about anything to each other*). I feel like a more rounded person from the interaction that college required of me - both with the semi-formal relationship with lecturers and the interpersonal relationships with other students.

And yes, I just typed the word "interpersonal relationships". That probably makes me "socially retarded".

* Okay, that sounds slightly more dramatic than I intended it to. I just mean that people can be incredibly resourceful when being vindictive. No one has attempted a genocide** on me. Yet.

** I know it wouldn't technically be a genocide, but still...

Karlusss

Powerhouse wrote: »

The problem is that most students don't read enough, so you can get people with very high marks who were able to prime themselves for a specific exam but who don't really have the commensurate level of broad and deep knowledge that only wide reading can bring.

Unfortunately the nature of terminal exams does little to promote broad reading. Much as students don't like them, exams actually suit students as they are predictable and their pressurised nature lessens the standard expected Also because such under-graduate papers are structured gaps in your knowledge are not as apparent and original thinking is not critical. It is much easier to score high than in a lengthy paper one might have to do as say a post-graduate when you have to give a genuinely exceptional performance to warrant a first. The exam still tends to reward cramming and feats of memory disproportionately and some students can punch above their true intellectual weight marks-wise, without perhaps mastering their area of study to any great extent.

This is probably closer to how I feel about than I would have been able to post, I think. Drink all year - cram for exams, and then you have what? Proof that you can work under pressure? You knew that from the Leaving Cert, probably. Proof that you're clever? **** that, if you need to be able to tell people you did nothing to get your first, your mindset is wrong from the beginning.

If you're not reading the whole way through (and this is specific to humanities subjects because I have no experience of anything else), you are missing the point of your degree. University is not about proving you can pass it, it's about lofty things like gaining insight on the world and on yourself and becoming... educated, stupid as that last sentence may sound.

Which is not to say you can't go out and get pissed all the time... or some of the time.

Powerhouse

Karlusss wrote: »

This is probably closer to how I feel about than I would have been able to post, I think. Drink all year - cram for exams, and then you have what? Proof that you can work under pressure? You knew that from the Leaving Cert, probably. Proof that you're clever? **** that, if you need to be able to tell people you did nothing to get your first, your mindset is wrong from the beginning.

If you're not reading the whole way through (and this is specific to humanities subjects because I have no experience of anything else), you are missing the point of your degree. University is not about proving you can pass it, it's about lofty things like gaining insight on the world and on yourself and becoming... educated, stupid as that last sentence may sound.

Which is not to say you can't go out and get pissed all the time... or some of the time.

I think you were doing youself down in the opening sentence, You pretty much nailed it in that post.

EGaffney

I don't really think that is the case. At final examination level, first class degrees tend to require broad knowledge of the literature and some original insight - I'm approaching this from an economics/social science perspective. As for II.1/II.2 degrees, does the average employer really need their graduates to have a unique interpretation of Camus?

Perhaps it's different in other subjects, but the people whom I know who can say "they did nothing to get their first" are rare if they exist at all...

(I would also add, in reference to the posts on the first page, that I once convened debates in the GMB every week, and the student speakers almost always put more effort into their presentations than the invited guest speakers, and were generally more relevant to the subjects we were debating than them also.)

Powerhouse

EGaffney wrote: »

I don't really think that is the case. At final examination level, first class degrees tend to require broad knowledge of the literature and some original insight - I'm approaching this from an economics/social science perspective. As for II.1/II.2 degrees, does the average employer really need their graduates to have a unique interpretation of Camus?

Perhaps it's different in other subjects, but the people whom I know who can say "they did nothing to get their first" are rare if they exist at all...

I agree that nobody can get a first without plenty of work, but what I have said is that it is possible to get one with short-term hard work rather than with wide reading and having a deep broad knowledge of the course that has been studied. As I often say, exams actually suit students rather than markers as it is possible to cherry pick material so it is relatively easy to present a good front in exams, while perhaps being unable to even attempt other questions on the paper.

In fact if I was advising a student on how to get a first I would probably advise them to steer clear of most of the average course and specialise in one or two areas. Of course this would be to the detriment of their general education but it is an effecive startegy as under-graduate papers are so predictable.

On your question "as for II.1/II.2 degrees, does the average employer really need their graduates to have a unique interpretation of Camus?" - the answer is perhaps not. But do employers not look at grades?

The education of the individual might not be directly applicable to a work situation - and usually won't be let's be honest - but grades say, fairly or unfairly, plenty about a student's ability to think individually and innovatively as well as work fairly hard when required to do so.

Being well-read and well-educated in the abstract is quite a different matter of course, but on balance employers probably prefer cleverer people irrespective of the area in which that cleverness has been established. The assumption would be that skills and a work ethic are transferable and the student who limps home with low grades after 3/4 years in college is also likely to be a 'limper' in the workforce.

pisslips

People will just adapt to the system they must adhere to. So if cramming works they'll do it and you cannot say that they have gained less than a person who immersed themselves in the subject. The person who crammed obviously has greater intrinsic problem-solving ability which they no doubt developed further through college.Efficiency of effort.

Also for example,a set of twins may have different lifestyles.One may be well read and the other may have slightly more sex and much more alcohol,''friends'' and a practical understanding of human'retard'nature.
Who has gained more from their 3-4 years?
THe one who has gained thousands of varied emotional experiences from embarrasment to lust.
Or the one who has a deeper understanding maybe of the world but who only had indirect exposure to it?

Why be given a torch and a voice in an empty room?

I think I'd rather have a room thats full and disorganised,untidy and unpredictable, full of regret, lust and embarrasment that I fumble through, stubbing my toe occasionally in the dark.I'd have friends there, only percieved by the sound of their damp hot breath and every time I speak my tongue slips from my lip so that the words all make the same meaningless sound.At least I'd have a bitta craic.

Running Bing

pisslips wrote: »

People will just adapt to the system they must adhere to. So if cramming works they'll do it and you cannot say that they have gained less than a person who immersed themselves in the subject. The person who crammed obviously has greater intrinsic problem-solving ability which they no doubt developed further through college.Efficiency of effort.

Also for example,a set of twins may have different lifestyles.One may be well read and the other may have slightly more sex and much more alcohol,''friends'' and a practical understanding of human'retard'nature.
Who has gained more from their 3-4 years?
THe one who has gained thousands of varied emotional experiences from embarrasment to lust.
Or the one who has a deeper understanding maybe of the world but who only had indirect exposure to it?

Why be given a torch and a voice in an empty room?

I think I'd rather have a room thats full and disorganised,untidy and unpredictable, full of regret, lust and embarrasment that I fumble through, stubbing my toe occasionally in the dark.I'd have friends there, only percieved by the sound of their damp hot breath and every time I speak my tongue slips from my lip so that the words all make the same meaningless sound.At least I'd have a bitta craic.

You've lived up to your username with that post.








:P

thebman

One could argue that cramming is more like the real world. You learn fast. You won't get to do 3 months research before doing a project in the private sector, you'll be expected to learn as you go.

I think crammers are better suited to this system.

JC 2K3

Karlusss wrote: »

If you're not reading the whole way through (and this is specific to humanities subjects because I have no experience of anything else), you are missing the point of your degree.

What point?

Powerhouse

pisslips wrote: »

People will just adapt to the system they must adhere to. So if cramming works they'll do it and you cannot say that they have gained less than a person who immersed themselves in the subject. The person who crammed obviously has greater intrinsic problem-solving ability which they no doubt developed further through college.Efficiency of effort.

Also for example,a set of twins may have different lifestyles.One may be well read and the other may have slightly more sex and much more alcohol,''friends'' and a practical understanding of human'retard'nature.
Who has gained more from their 3-4 years?
THe one who has gained thousands of varied emotional experiences from embarrasment to lust.
Or the one who has a deeper understanding maybe of the world but who only had indirect exposure to it?

Why be given a torch and a voice in an empty room?

I think I'd rather have a room thats full and disorganised,untidy and unpredictable, full of regret, lust and embarrasment that I fumble through, stubbing my toe occasionally in the dark.I'd have friends there, only percieved by the sound of their damp hot breath and every time I speak my tongue slips from my lip so that the words all make the same meaningless sound.At least I'd have a bitta craic.

This is incredible rambling nonsense to be honest about it.

There is absolutely no doubt that people who immerse themselves in their subject will have a far better grasp of it. It is, as I have said, a crammer's system but to say that crammers have as much of a grasp of things at the end is ridiculous.

And the notion that studying and getting laid/having de craic are mutually exclusive is quite a novel idea. The one thing students have plenty of is time. There's little excuse not to be able to do all of the above.

Though I am sure an employer would be impressed with an "actually I know sweet FA about my subject after 4 years studying it but I had great craic" on the average CV.

Powerhouse

thebman wrote: »

One could argue that cramming is more like the real world. You learn fast. You won't get to do 3 months research before doing a project in the private sector, you'll be expected to learn as you go.

I think crammers are better suited to this system.

The idea that everyone gets three months to do college projects is laughable!

But leaving that aside, there is an assumption here that people who work diligently and consistently are on top of their game somehow are likely to creak under pressure. There is no basis for this. Any employer would look for someone who works consistently above the 'all-nighter' college assignment specialist who has to constantly panic his way out of the mess his procrastination created in the first place. There is an essential weakness in crammers that lowers their standards that would hardly appeal to an employer.

I should admit that I tried it both ways in college, and I know which version I'd prefer to be employing.

But there is an underlying assumption here that college is meant to be direct preparation for employment. It is not. It is there to educate people and it is almost inevitable that people will along the way display/develop the type of skills that will be applicable to the workplace and perform them in a manner which suggests to a potential employer how they might operate in the 'real world' as you call it.

The idea that the college hero who needed bucketfuls of red bull to keep him awake for the three nights before his exams before limping to a white-knuckle 62% and thereby beating the system hands down is somehow more employable or would be more favourably looked upon by a potential employer than someone who is more reliable, consistent and ultimately effective might be a plausible yarn in the pub but shows little appreciation of the more prosaic and sober judgements in the real world you've cited. A 'skin of the teeth' merchant is the last thing most employers covet.