Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Improving undergraduate Geography education at third level level
-
06-04-2010 11:30pm#1
Comments
-
-
How would you do it? What would you add to degree courses? What changes are needed currently?
I did a BA in Geography in UCD and found that the only use of my degree was that I could get into an MSc in Environmental Science with it. No discernible skills, just tedious essay writing.
If I was to change things, I'd introduce more;- Statistics (preferably the R programme and Excel),
- more GIS (Arc and Map Info!),
- Environmental Chemical analysis (unbelievably useful; stable isotope mass spec, XRD, XRF, ICP-OES etc...),
- Biogeochemistry (this is massive now),
- Microscopy and Sedimentology (for foraminifera research, sedimentation rates, provenance of sediments etc...) and
- Hydrology (speaks for itself really).
The way I see it, Geography is now caught up into the climate change research and to be frank there's no room anymore for learning about cultural/sociology based stuff. It's useless research that has no benefit, not fiscally or academically. I'd probably introduce a BSc in Geography degree (like Queen's or Durham). I don't mind most human geography stuff but there's a fair amount of rubbish being taught (I think Delta Bravo would agree with me on this one;)). Once upon a time, Geographers were regarded as scientists. However, ever since the cultural turn in the 1980s onwards, this has slipped drastically. Now, we're getting geographers that would be more at home in the Sociology department.
This is just my view, what do the rest of ye think?
A good improvement would probably start by overcoming those sentiments - there is nothing to be gained from this line of thinking. Some of the best work in the field of climate research/sustainable community development is coming from productive collaboration from both human and physical geographers, and there are many sub-fields that have always sat productively between the two (political and medical geographies).
In my opinion, human geography is fast becoming the most productive precisely because of its ability to evaluate the policy implication/practicalities of environmental modification/change -mainly as you say via GIS.
[The past isn't as golden either, Geography has been defending its own efficacy since its elimination at Harvard in the 40's, moreso than any other discipline (see Smith)]
Having said that, the 'bull****' is certainly present, although it is hardly limited to geography (sociology and anthropology being amongst the worst to suffer the 'cultural turn'). Leftism holds sway in academia, and consequently shapes the content of many third level human geography modules - (which in my own undergrad experience translates into theory for theories sake....and by the way here's some GIS).
Having ended up on the human side of the field, I now regret - and fully agree with you - not having experienced stats training beyond the basics, which again is not limited to geography departments. I'm not sure how useful it is to have a heavy physical slant on a traditionally eclectic degree - it was the integration of theory and practice that drew me from engineering to geography in the first place.
Allowing students to specialise is a different matter entirely, but in doing so you run the risk of maintaining scattered departments with specialist labs as appendages (something which is happening at my home institution at the moment) - it didn't work well for Harvard either
edit: sorry for the opener - and I'm not suggesting for a second that the areas you mention aren't worthwhile - they certainly are. There is much more to be gained from cooperation however.0 -
A good improvement would probably start by overcoming those sentiments - there is nothing to be gained from this line of thinking. Some of the best work in the field of climate research/sustainable community development is coming from productive collaboration from both human and physical geographers, and there are many sub-fields that have always sat productively between the two (political and medical geographies).
In my opinion, human geography is fast becoming the most productive precisely because of its ability to evaluate the policy implication/practicalities of environmental modification/change -mainly as you say via GIS.
[The past isn't as golden either, Geography has been defending its own efficacy since its elimination at Harvard in the 40's, moreso than any other discipline (see Smith)]
Having said that, the 'bull****' is certainly present, although it is hardly limited to geography (sociology and anthropology being amongst the worst to suffer the 'cultural turn'). Leftism holds sway in academia, and consequently shapes the content of many third level human geography modules - (which in my own undergrad experience translates into theory for theories sake....and by the way here's some GIS).
Having ended up on the human side of the field, I now regret - and fully agree with you - not having experienced stats training beyond the basics, which again is not limited to geography departments. I'm not sure how useful it is to have a heavy physical slant on a traditionally eclectic degree - it was the integration of theory and practice that drew me from engineering to geography in the first place.
Allowing students to specialise is a different matter entirely, but in doing so you run the risk of maintaining scattered departments with specialist labs as appendages (something which is happening at my home institution at the moment) - it didn't work well for Harvard either
edit: sorry for the opener - and I'm not suggesting for a second that the areas you mention aren't worthwhile - they certainly are. There is much more to be gained from cooperation however.
Well my academic experience of geography was essentially one based entirely on esoteric litterature that was only vaguely related to the real world. I didn’t say all human geography was irrelavent, just the stuff which I learned (cultural geography, feminist political geography, public policy etc...). I absolutely detest this stuff because it’s entirely subjective and vague and full of made up postmodernist language which is hard enough to pronounce let alone remember!
My line of thinking is essentially bringing in more ‘hard’ science into the discipline. In UCD there’s only three physical geographers, out of how many human? This is ridiculous because you lose that eclectic appreciation for the natural environment that geography was founded upon, all them years ago with Alexander Von Humboldt swanning around Mexico.
I don’t really care about what’s going on in anthropology and sociology, I know thought that the leftist turn has affected them hugely to the point that any other thought is considered ‘neoliberal’ and ‘revisionist’ (which is ridiculous).
The physical slant is hugely important, an example would be sedimentation and estuarine erosion. How can you implement a community management plan without knowing or even appreciating the physical environment or knowing the 'soft' engineering approaches. The same can be said with climate change, how do you expect people to jump on CO2 emissions reductions bandwagons if one is unsure about the physical nature of CO2 emissions.
Maybe that’s why we need specialists in this I suppose. At the moment we already have departments specialising already:- UCD – Human Geography, Planning and Environmental Policy.
- NUIM – GIS, Spatial Statistics, Public Policy, Medical geography, Climatology.
- QUB – Sedimentology, Coastal Geomorphology, Palaeoecology, Radiometric dating.
- TCD – Limnology, Sea level change, Biogeochemistry, Developmental geography.
- 1st year: do your three subjects or whatever combination;
- 2nd year: opt for BA or BSc (where 80% of the modules are human or physical based and the other 20% are on practical skills like GIS, Stats, programming, research writing etc... things which are useful to both the human and physical crowd)
- Final year: continuation of the former with a thesis.
I do agree that more cooperation is needed, but this business of geogaphy undergraduates escaping nearly every semblage of physical geography is bad form.0 -
I came out of NUIM, where we were required to take one physical module per year (from a department with a heavy human slant) - which worked well. Some thrived on the more 'sciency' hydrology, remotes sensing, some were more theoretical - the bonus of mandatory modules from both was you got a solid grounding away from the more abstract theory (which was in no short supply).
There are two risks in what you are suggesting though - that you end up with specialist research groups indistinct from core science faculties (geology, env. science etc), or a human science degree without a solid theoretical grounding (part of what drove geography into crisis in the first place).
Geography's greatest strength is in its ability to incorporate theories of human action into an empirically grounded research programme - something sorely lacking in other disciplines. That strength comes from the traditionally broad mix of social and natural science training.
Despite what you say, I do believe there is immense value in historical (the very foundations of Geography in Ireland as we know it), medical, urban and political geographies - and it worries me a little that you equate academic value with monetary value.
Spot on with 'postmodernism' though, we have all suffered through it, hopefully a little more hardened and wary 0 -
I came out of NUIM, where we were required to take one physical module per year (from a department with a heavy human slant) - which worked well. Some thrived on the more 'sciency' hydrology, remotes sensing, some were more theoretical - the bonus of mandatory modules from both was you got a solid grounding away from the more abstract theory (which was in no short supply).
There are two risks in what you are suggesting though - that you end up with specialist research groups indistinct from core science faculties (geology, env. science etc), or a human science degree without a solid theoretical grounding (part of what drove geography into crisis in the first place).
Geography's greatest strength is in its ability to incorporate theories of human action into an empirically grounded research programme - something sorely lacking in other disciplines. That strength comes from the traditionally broad mix of social and natural science training.
Despite what you say, I do believe there is immense value in historical (the very foundations of Geography in Ireland as we know it), medical, urban and political geographies - and it worries me a little that you equate academic value with monetary value.
Spot on with 'postmodernism' though, we have all suffered through it, hopefully a little more hardened and wary
Oh I want to state, that I value historical geography, it really is one of those cornerstones of the discipline which has really kept up with the times (we're still producing solid historical geographers). I don't equate academic value with monetary value, I just don't see the need in certain strands of research, which because money was plenty available at the time that it got funded. Seriously, there has been some serious funding pumped into the postmodernist type geography in the last ten years and what has it yielded, even academically? Buzzwords that get thrown into European Union vernacular, my own experience was researching 'residualisation' while I was working at Maynooth.
As rounded as geography is, I would like to see graduates who can handle specific scientific work. When you think of it, even from a research point of view, what good is it on a graduates cv that they studied feminist political geography? Really, unless they want to be a feminist political geographer there's no benefit. What I'm suggesting is that having some appreciation of say chemical analysis might be more useful. It's useful in research because you can't take a core sample without knowing the background pH, N, P etc... concentrations. It's useful on a cv because they can tell an employer; "yes I've experience with ICP-OES, Mass Spec, Gran Titration etc..." It's more of a skills base that I'd like to see in undergrads, as opposed to the usual memory test.
Well geography isn't the only discipline that takes human actions into empirical research, this can be found in most environmental disciplines (every single one really). What's funny about geography and you've pointed it out is that you do end up encroaching on other disciplines, but this isn't just indicative of physical geography, Jesus physical geography is a mixture of hydrology, geology and meteorology at times! Human geography does the exact same thing. What separates geography, is that; it deals with everything from the palaeocene onwards i.e. 'time' (in physical for this one), it involves 'space' of any kind, and it deals with 'place'.
I suppose I'm just annoyed at the way it was run in UCD, NUIM always had a great reputation (especially the single honours programme, my brother went there and he loved it). UCD was more of mill, where only lip service was paid to physical geography and even then it was God awful (absolutely no practicals, all research). What I'm concerned about is that it's only going to get worse with budget cut backs.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Oh I want to state, that I value historical geography, it really is one of those cornerstones of the discipline which has really kept up with the times (we're still producing solid historical geographers).
They have been hardest hit by the recession in terms of early retirements - I dont think there are many tenured historical geographers left in UCD either, despite its long history, which is a shameI don't equate academic value with monetary value, I just don't see the need in certain strands of research, which because money was plenty available at the time that it got funded. Seriously, there has been some serious funding pumped into the postmodernist type geography in the last ten years and what has it yielded, even academically? Buzzwords that get thrown into European Union vernacular, my own experience was researching 'residualisation' while I was working at Maynooth.
There will always be an inferior other, irrespective of how much any discipline may change - but I do agree that the indulgence of the boom years has cost in terms of credibility.As rounded as geography is, I would like to see graduates who can handle specific scientific work. When you think of it, even from a research point of view, what good is it on a graduates cv that they studied feminist political geography? Really, unless they want to be a feminist political geographer there's no benefit.
If you're working in community development of some sort, it could be essential. But I think we can agree that there is a line somewhere close by where it crosses into nonsense....?What I'm suggesting is that having some appreciation of say chemical analysis might be more useful. It's useful in research because you can't take a core sample without knowing the background pH, N, P etc... concentrations. It's useful on a cv because they can tell an employer; "yes I've experience with ICP-OES, Mass Spec, Gran Titration etc..." It's more of a skills base that I'd like to see in undergrads, as opposed to the usual memory test.
Entering a jobs market with fully accredited and underemployed civil engineers would soon render it useless. A core geography degree will never confer skills to a sufficient level with which to compete with a fully specialised BSc/BEng graduate. Such competitive advances for the geographer are made (and made well) at postgraduate level - I'm not sure how much you can do with a three year degree*Well geography isn't the only discipline that takes human actions into empirical research, this can be found in most environmental disciplines (every single one really). What's funny about geography and you've pointed it out is that you do end up encroaching on other disciplines, but this isn't just indicative of physical geography, Jesus physical geography is a mixture of hydrology, geology and meteorology at times! Human geography does the exact same thing. What separates geography, is that; it deals with everything from the palaeocene onwards i.e. 'time' (in physical for this one), it involves 'space' of any kind, and it deals with 'place'.
As evidenced in the growth of human ecology journals and research - disciplinary encroachment IMO has been largely positive (ecological economics, human ecology, climatology). One of the defining characteristics of geography is its ability to merge abstract social theory with empirical data, and it does so powerfully.I suppose I'm just annoyed at the way it was run in UCD, NUIM always had a great reputation (especially the single honours programme, my brother went there and he loved it). UCD was more of mill, where only lip service was paid to physical geography and even then it was God awful (absolutely no practicals, all research). What I'm concerned about is that it's only going to get worse with budget cut backs.
Thats awful, although I ended up in social science, I loved and miss physical geography (and science in general). I suppose it does come down to individual departments - I took geomorphology, GIS and remote sensing throughout my degree and I feel it has served me well. The degree didn't turn out competitive geologists or data analysts, but it did set us up well for further study, which is the best you can hope for in a degree if you have specialist work in mind.
Overall though I feel our undergraduate programmes could do with some tuning up, I'm still annoyed having had to teach myself stats throughout my postgrad years - todays undergrads are getting away with murder
*As a personal aside I went from a civil engineering degree into a BA, a lot of which served me well (surveying and CAD in particular). I just cant see a geography graduate with a 40% human component 3 year degree competing with a 4-year BEng (no, I am not) for a physical-related job. But again, postgraduate work always levels the playing field well, and it is here I think we should be focusing.I absolutely hate the word 'postmodernism', I get shivers down my spine even thinking of it.;)
Speaking of human contributions.... Well worth a read. Actually Harvey's career is a paradoxical tour of the overall cultural turn. He wrote measurement in Geography (presumably!) before reading Marx's Capital and the rest is history... 0 -
They have been hardest hit by the recession in terms of early retirements - I dont think there are many tenured historical geographers left in UCD either, despite its long history, which is a shame
When I hear Willy Nolan was retiring, I was fairly shocked, I'll miss the abstract rants and eclecticism he always instilled in a lecture. He really made human geography interesting, which is a lost skill really. Maynooth is extremely lucky to have Paddy Duffy still there.efla wrote:There will always be an inferior other, irrespective of how much any discipline may change - but I do agree that the indulgence of the boom years has cost in terms of credibility.
Well that's it really, indulgence was the buzzword. Really sickened by how much was spent on what exactly? Being told a regeneration project doesn't work? Yes because having a PhD really matters here!efla wrote:If you're working in community development of some sort, it could be essential. But I think we can agree that there is a line somewhere close by where it crosses into nonsense....?
Well that's it you see, I started off as proper human geographer, I mean I really got big into it and then did a David Harvey and took the Dick Chorley and Luna Leopold route on things. I suppose that's the thing with geography, we bridge the gap between the human and the natural environments.efla wrote:Entering a jobs market with fully accredited and underemployed civil engineers would soon render it useless. A core geography degree will never confer skills to a sufficient level with which to compete with a fully specialised BSc/BEng graduate. Such competitive advances for the geographer are made (and made well) at postgraduate level - I'm not sure how much you can do with a three year degree*
I agree, but what I'm getting at is I suppose increasing the chances of undergrads getting the places on those postgrad course where they have the 50-50 chance of getting on.efla wrote:As evidenced in the growth of human ecology journals and research - disciplinary encroachment IMO has been largely positive (ecological economics, human ecology, climatology). One of the defining characteristics of geography is its ability to merge abstract social theory with empirical data, and it does so powerfully.
I love this to be honest, this is the kind of stuff that keeps geography on top, the pure fuzzing of boundaries that geologists or chemists don't get! It's really where exactly one falls with the merging of social theory and empirical data, I suppose there'll always be some divide between the human and physical geographers!;)efla wrote:Thats awful, although I ended up in social science, I loved and miss physical geography (and science in general). I suppose it does come down to individual departments - I took geomorphology, GIS and remote sensing throughout my degree and I feel it has served me well. The degree didn't turn out competitive geologists or data analysts, but it did set us up well for further study, which is the best you can hope for in a degree if you have specialist work in mind.
Well in fairness, ye had Paul Gibson and Ro Charlton, they're pretty damn good at what they do. Again I suppose further study is the key aspect here but some level of practical skills must be introduced.efla wrote:Overall though I feel our undergraduate programmes could do with some tuning up, I'm still annoyed having had to teach myself stats throughout my postgrad years - todays undergrads are getting away with murder
You wouldn't believe it if I told you. I did no stats in my undergrad, half way through my MSc, start learning the R programme for stats. Great programme but it was like a gimpy child jumping the Grand Canyon - near impossible! So I do think a proper stats module is definitely needed for undergrads.efla wrote:*As a personal aside I went from a civil engineering degree into a BA, a lot of which served me well (surveying and CAD in particular). I just cant see a geography graduate with a 40% human component 3 year degree competing with a 4-year BEng (no, I am not) for a physical-related job. But again, postgraduate work always levels the playing field well, and it is here I think we should be focusing.
I don't expect geographers to compete with engineers, I just expect geographers to have some working knowledge of things beyond the readings.efla wrote:Speaking of human contributions.... Well worth a read. Actually Harvey's career is a paradoxical tour of the overall cultural turn. He wrote measurement in Geography (presumably!) before reading Marx's Capital and the rest is history...
Along with William Bunge I suppose. Harvey's a gas hoore, started off in historical geography, then got big into stats (while at Birmingham, surprise surprise!:rolleyes:), goes to JHU Baltimore and becomes a complete leftist. He's odd to say the least.:D Last I heard, he was lecturing in anthropolgy at NYU, some man for one man!0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Advertisement