3rd level approach to Science

liberal

I think that too much emphasis is put on remembering and reproducing than on logical and analytical thinking

Would the likes of Koch or Darwin enjoy cramming for an MCQ? How good would they be at learning off the stages of the CAC or the codons for each amino acid? If I don't make it to research level because I can't rote learn I'll cry

just throwing it out there

tallaght01

I think learning lots of stuff has it's place. Everyone knows we don't retain most of it. But it comes much more easily when we do have to.

I think if you have a degree in science, you should have to know a shed load of science.

I also think a lot of analytical skills depend on a good knowledge of the subject area. For example, when I did my biomed degree, we would get lots of exam questions on disorders of the urea cycle and the krebbs cycle for example. You could go running to the books everytime someone mentions an enzyme, but it's not practicable in the real world.

norrie rugger

I think that there has to be a happy medium somewhere though.
I have seen people who cram get huge marks in writen papers but begin to fall apart in lab exams, or final year lab projects.

conversly I have seen people shine in practical settings but struggle with the detail required, for written exams

r3nu4l

Yep a happy medium would be great but is difficult to find in a third level course. Tallaght01 is spot on in his assessment imo.
To be honest, it's very, very difficult to strike this balance in any taught course, at degree or Masters level.

However, in a research Masters or Doctorate the balance is struck very well simply because while you research you have to do a huge amount of reading and learning in tandem. You need to read to come up with new ideas and inspiration and to help you put your results in context. So in that sense, third level education works well.

It's good to remember too that a degree isn't the end point of your education. It just means that you have sufficient knowledge to begin working and learning in your field of interest.

I know a Professor who on his retirement reflected that his only regret was that he still had so much to learn!

tallaght01

r3nu4l wrote: »

However, in a research Masters or Doctorate the balance is struck very well simply because while you research you have to do a huge amount of reading and learning in tandem. You need to read to come up with new ideas and inspiration and to help you put your results in context. So in that sense, third level education works well.

I think that sums it up well. Same with good undergrad degrees. You shouldn't be able to just get through by cramming. You should be tested in several ways. We had practical and written exams, as well as data analysis exams.

I really believe that having a degree in a subject should mean something. Lots of people say that demands on students are dropping in general, which worries me a bit.

I don't think we should kill people with work at uni, but I think you should have to know your subject really really well to get a degree.

norrie rugger

tallaght01 wrote: »

I think that sums it up well. Same with good undergrad degrees. You shouldn't be able to just get through by cramming. You should be tested in several ways. We had practical and written exams, as well as data analysis exams.

I really believe that having a degree in a subject should mean something. Lots of people say that demands on students are dropping in general, which worries me a bit.

I don't think we should kill people with work at uni, but I think you should have to know your subject really really well to get a degree.

I went to the I.T. and our course was split between lab exams and writen.
I felt it was just a bit overly slightly skewed to writed but almost there.

I am not one that did better in any aspect. That was my lazy self though and not studying.

liberal

Yeah the ITs have a better model I think

r3nu4l

The IT model is great for the practicalities of a day-to-day job and that's brilliant but those courses are only equipped to give you the knowledge necessary to perform well in a certain spectrum of jobs.

The University sector has advantages too in that it covers aspects of a subject that don't necessarily relate to a particular job but are good to know nonetheless.

Some of the University courses now operate 'real-world' work placements in the final year but to be honest, a work placement is only as good as the company that you are going to work for, makes it.

Some companies just want a dogsbody, others actually strive to foster and educate the undergrad.

The other thing to note is that as I already said, the end of a degree is just the beginning of the learning so the institute you qualify from (unless it's one of the top 20 Third-level institutes in the World) doesn't really matter too much.

In a perfect world, the University and IT way of doing things would be combined in a neat package. Unfortunately, we don't have a perfect world just yet.

norrie rugger

r3nu4l wrote: »

In a perfect world, the University and IT way of doing things would be combined in a neat package. Unfortunately, we don't have a perfect world just yet.

The U.I.T or the UniT?

Completely agree with you about the degree only being the beginning. It is amazing how much I have forgotten in 2.5 years out of lab environments

SaturnV

I think another important is that all "science" degrees do not, and should not, strive to the same goal. There should be a significant difference between the approach to teaching and the learning outcomes in a "pure" academic science degree, and the applied science degrees, especially the professional degrees, which are essentially training for a specific job.

Tallaght01 mentioned that you need the facts at hand in "the real world", but that's only true in a certain context. Yes, this is true for the the applied sciences etc; if you are training a medic, the only concern is that they can do the job of a medic, and that is their "real world" context. But I think an important point is that the real world context for someone with a science degree does not necessarily involve scientific knowledge, but scientific thinking. This is a point lost on many undergraduates; the skills in communication and critical and analytical thinking are valued in many industries outside the scientific. Yet graduates every year are disappointed because they expect to be able to get a job "doing science". You can't blame them; they were sold their degree programmes on this basis. Read any prospectus. The marketing and PR people in the universities have a lot to answer for...

In a sense I agree with the OP. I think there is there is a possibility to get quite far in a pure science degree programme primarily using rote learning with minimal understanding. Many people who use this approach will come unstuck in their final year. Unfortunately this trend is a side effect of the strain the universities are under; assessments like MCQs are just easier to manage in a large class.

doctor evil

Heya

I have a question, I'm doing an Access Course to Science and Engingeering and I plan to do Science next year. Depending on what branch this takes me would it be better to do a year or two work in the real world after the four years before going onto something like a phd?

liberal

doctor evil wrote: »

Heya

I have a question, I'm doing an Access Course to Science and Engingeering and I plan to do Science next year. Depending on what branch this takes me would it be better to do a year or two work in the real world after the four years before going onto something like a phd?

Your not required to but I imagine it's a good idea

you'll know yourself when the time comes, maybe you'll need a break from college or maybe you'll have good momentum and be ready to crack on with it

doctor evil

Good to hear.